Good question.

* First, it was the administration's ongoing
insistence (via Geithner) that this is a
liquidity crisis, not a credit crisis--the Wall
Street view.

* Then it was the failure to do anything more
than express "anger" at the AIG bonuses.

* Then it was Geithner's plan to, yet again,
bail out banks at taxpayer expense.

* Then it was the administration's decision to
force GM into bankruptcy, fire its CEO, and hit
its bondholders--setting up a bizarre
double-standard with Wall Street.

* Then it was a "stress test" for banks in which
the baseline scenario has already been eclipsed
by the deterioration of the economy--once again
slamming the administration's credibility

* Then it was the revelation that Larry Summers
made $5+ million from Wall Street last year,
which added to the perception that he, Geithner,
Rahm Emmanuel, etc. are reluctant to bite the
hands that feed them.

* Now it is the leaked announcement that "all
banks have passed the stress test!", combined
with a refusal to share the results of that
stress test on a bank-by-bank basis.

Gee...they all passed. Ho convenient. That means they don't need
any more of OUR money and can START GIVING IT BACK.

The more disturbing explanation, meanwhile, is
that the Obama administration really is in Wall
Street's hip pocket.  Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg
thinks there's a chance this is the case.  And
Obama certainly isn't doing anything to
discourage this.

By maintaining a double-standard and refusing to
address the elephant in the room, Obama is
risking his credibility and his reputation for
telling it like it is.  This behavior, both
toward the banks and toward Americans, is a
disturbing echo of the Bush administration.
It's time for Obama to address it head on.

Damn straight. With his stance on the wire taps and secrecy,
one has to wonder.

C

     This all sounds so compassionate and reasonable . . .


Here is Karen Ignagni  the CEO and chief spokesperson for America's Health insurance Plans (AHIP) being interviewed by USA Today:

truveo.com/Newsmaker-Ignagni-on-health-care/id/1770283112

But the real fear tactics come out in a video funded by none other that AHIP that does NOT truthfully represent the latest actions in the house of representatives to remove corporate grifters from handling Medicare Advantage plans.

House Votes To Push Millions Of Seniors Out Of Medicare Advantage

So -- what's the real deal? From  an article in the ThinkProgress about the industry friendly reporting that the WSJ had published:

The real question is: do the government's over payments actually provide better care than traditional Medicare?

The short answer is "no." A number of government reports and independent estimates have dampened the rationale for subsidizing MA plans. The extra federal dollars don't improve health outcomes. They pad insurers' bottom lines, raise costs for beneficiaries in the traditional Medicare program, squeeze both Medicare and the federal budget, and drain resources from more productive uses. Private fee-for-service Medicare Advantage plans, moreover, have exposed beneficiaries to serious financial risks.

It's also unclear why MA plans that claim to coordinate care and operate efficiently can't provide services at competitive rates. If they can manage care and the cost of care, why then do they need the extra federal dollars?

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/07/wsj-ma/

In Closing -- The following information is from OpenSecrets.org:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indus.php?lname=h&year=2008

Lobbying

Health

Sector Profile, 2008

Total For Health: $481,507,404

Campaign Contributions from this industry

Some of those lobbyist funds are for a good purpose, but how much is for keeping the status quo?

~OGD~

 

Origin matters.  Since the Supreme Court of the United States by fiat decided to "take prayer out of the schools," we've noticed a progressive moral impoverishment of youth and a gradual coarsening of childhood development.  The news is replete with shootings, rapes, kidnappings and murders.  Many of us grieve to witness such painful and lawless conflagration in America.

Children are taught they are no more than "descendants of monkeys," rather than that they are uniquely created in the image and likeness of God. Chimpansees are beasts; no human being should ever be compared to one. Following this grievous error, the Supreme Court again violated the Declaration of Independence by its decision to make infanticide commonplace with the Roe v. Wade "mis-judgment." These decisions violate our Founding document, the Declaration of Independence in which our Creator is proclaimed as the sole Author of our inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But children remain captive audiences and trapped subjects of the State where bureaucrats inculcate them every day with "ape mentality."  The Holy Bible states that children are a gift from God.  What State-monopoly public schools are perpetrating is such a gross degradation of the human family that it engenders mortified self-esteem, subconscious suicidal ideation and externally expressed self-hate or death wish, due to the possession of an animalistic self-image and a destructive self-concept. 

It was not always so.  We must remember that it was not until the 1920's, in the aftermath of the Stokes Trial, that State-controlled public schools began to teach the theory of evolution, as social darwinism became a part of its regular curriculum.  In its extreme form, "ape indoctrination" has climaxed into this general theme we continuously hear in "Holly-jungle" movies - "the monkey with the most toys wins."  It's an evil disgrace to think that this is what human life in America has been reduced to - "a monkey existing just to accumulate things?" 

But in every neighborhood, churches are still alive and vibrant with the Word of God, to elevate the human spirit to the heights of good judgment regarding the way human beings ought to live, in accordance with God's moral commandments.  We must thunderously say NO to "ape origin," and rise in moral indignation to reaffirm our authentic, genuine, true and real identity as children of God, in order to renew ourselves in the Judeo-Christian tradition, as envisioned by America's Founders, and thereby transform our social institutions into constructive bulwarks of human edification for continuum improvement of our condition "in order to form a more perfect Union."

God bless the United States of America and all its children in the name of Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior. 

 

Dear Sir:

I wanted to take a moment of your time to question the reasons for your refusal to grant an honorary degree to Pres. Obama.

While I realize that he has many achievements to come, I also think that his current achievements far outstrip those of past honorees.   After all, you have bestowed degrees upon the Canadian Prime Minister, the President of the Navajo Nation and noted humorist Erma Bombeck.

Regardless of the intent, you have caused a great deal of suspicion in the rest of the country. We see this as either racist or sour grapes. Most think it has little to do with the qualifications of the President.     Please keep in mind that to many Americans who have never visited Arizona it is best known for the Grand Canyon and as the state that wouldn't celebrate Martin Luther King Day.    As a visitor who loves your state, I know it not to be true.   But that's based on my personal experiences and not what I have read in the news.  

While I personally do not think that race played a part in your decision....others will!    And the fact that you did not realize this before you announced your decision is troubling.  It makes you, personally; appear to be amazingly blind to public relations.   (Which one would think would be an important aspect of your job.)

Perhaps if the accomplishments of the President of the United States are not enough to bestow a degree upon him, you should have selected a different, more qualified speaker.

Regardless of your reasons, you should have realized that this will be a publicity nightmare for the University which you serve and the state in which you live.    There will be very good candidates for your school who will choose other schools to attend.  There will be vacationers who may prefer visiting somewhere other than the Fairmont Scottsdale this year.   I will be curious to see if this alters fund raising figures for your school.   I doubt the loss will be significant, but it seems foolhardy in these trying economic times to drive away any business.   And your university's seemingly partisan decision must take responsibility for those losses.

All in all, this was a poorly thought out decision on the part of the committee declining to honor the President of the United States.  Or it was shortsighted on the part of the committee who selected your commencement speaker.    Either way it reflects poorly upon you personally, your university and the state of Arizona.

I find it sad that you have chosen a path that leaves you open to charges of racism and political partisanship.   On the up side....your graduating students will receive a memorable experience from an eloquent speaker whose' inexperience has led him to the White House in a landslide over one of your state's favorite sons.   And since I have heard Sen. McCain speak, I can only say that your students are the real winners here.

 

 

THAT'S MY LETTER.    BE SURE AND SEND YOUR HERE

ABC News helps the GOP and Pawlenty make stuff up about Obama admin middle class taxes: here.

The GOP voted AGAINST middle class tax cuts that were in the stimulus bill. And the mainstream media continue to just simply reguritate GOP talking points.

Everyone making under $250k/year is already seeing more income in their paychecks thanks to the middle class tax cuts. But Republicans ALL voted against it. Now they try to say that Obama is taxing TOO MUCH because there are no middle class tax cuts in the budget??

What a complete crock. And ABC News and the MSM allow them to get away with more lies like this. There are NO tax increases in this budget.

But will there be FACTUAL coverage of taxes and the budget? Certainly not. The GOP is allowed to fill the coverage with noise and loose "facts".

There is also NO small business tax and the tax INCREASE is simply allowing the damaging Bush wealthy class tax gifts to expire in 2011 to go BACK to the 2001 level of 39% from 36%.

The media coverage of TAXES and this BUDGET has been abysmal.

C'mon Savage, you're making this way too easy.

Radio blowhard and Right-wing snaggletooth Michael Savage has recently resumed his writing career over at World Net Daily. This is good news for thinking Americans, because it offers us some time to deconstruct the nonsense that he peddles.

Case in point: In his April 10 offering, Savage bemoans the state of the U.S. Navy, in light of the recent attacks by Somali pirates against merchant ships. The Navy, he asserts,

has become nothing more than an extended form of welfare so that certain groups in our country can have better access to health care. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Nice, huh? This from a guy who purports to be a patriotic American.

Anyway, Savage proceeds in this column to give us a little history of the U.S. Navy and pirates. Well, at least he gives us Savage history. Which is, of course, a nice way of saying he got it wrong:

I told you months ago on "The Savage Nation" that the U.S. Navy was created in the early 1800s to combat the Barbary pirates that were attacking our merchant ships from North Africa. These were Muslim pirates, just as the pirates who are attacking our vessels from Somalia are Muslim pirates. And it seems now that months after I told you these facts, the rest of the media have caught up, because now I am hearing the same lines spouted by the hemorrhoid with ears on Fixed News.

And later he says:

the main point is that Thomas Jefferson created our Navy to confront exactly this kind of situation.

Well, not exactly. The U.S. Navy was born as the Continental Navy in 1775. (Don't take my word for it. Read about it here.) But the new government wasn't that enamored with maintaining a navy, and the last frigate was sold two years after the Revolutionary War.

Attacks on American merchant shipping by Barbary Coast pirates in the period after the Revolution drew attention to the need for a naval power, but, according to the Navy's own history, they did not lead immediately to the resurrection of the navy. It took until 1794, when Congress passed a naval act, for the navy to be reinstated. Congress decided to build a number of frigates to defend against attacks led by Algerians and other along the Barbary Coast. But, according to the navy's history, these vessels weren't used because the US reached a diplomatic solution with Algiers.

The US Navy was already well-established by 1801 -- and, in fact, had already fought a limited war with France -- when Jefferson sent ships to defend American merchant ship and attack pirates and their sponsors.

By the way, that search took fewer than five minutes. See what I mean when I say that Savage is the laziest Ph.D?

Savage also takes to task Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for not threatening military action against the pirates. Savage, that's not her call and you know that, or at least you should. (You have to understand that the Clintons are one of Savage's favorite targets. He devotes much ink to them in a couple of his political books. Most of what he says is crap, of course, but what do you expect?)

Savage also questions why the merchant ships aren't armed, and calls one ship company owner an idiot for saying he woujldn't do it. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, shipping companies are reluctant to arm their crews because they are afraid of injuries to their crews and damage to their ships. Their thinking is that pirates would just get larger weapons and fire them from a distance.

I don't know about that. Seems to me the pirates want the ships in one piece, otherwise they are useless to them. Can't hold a sunken ship for ransom, right? But my point is that rather than research the issue and, perhaps, come up with an answer, Savage instead asks insulting questions and assumes everyone else is not as smart as he is.

Savage ends his tirade be demanding military action."We need to retaliate against these Muslim pirates with full military force to let them know that they cannot do this," he sputters.

Pretty tough words froma guy who spent his generation's war, in Vietnam, galavanting around the Pacific picking flowers and herbs.

Keep the faith.

A portrait of excellence 

by Carey Rowland, April 11 2009

Prelude:

1.)  April  6, Monday night: The University of North Carolina men's basketball team defeated  the Michigan State University team, in Detroit.   UNC Tarheels were declared National Champions. A ceremony and celebration following the 9:00 pm game lasted well past midnight. It was a long night, but it was worth it.  No tellin' what time it was when the 'Heels  collapsed in their beds.

2.) April 7, Tuesday: Tarheels returned to Chapel Hill, where they were extended a grand welcome by the Carolina faithful.

3.) April 8, Wednesday night: The Tarheel senior players bounced right back to playing basketball. They joined with other ACC stars in Hickory, NC, to begin a statewide tour of exposition games to raise money for charity.  

4.) April 9, Thursday night:  70 hours after winning the National Championship, the Tarheel seniors played  their second game of the fundraising Carolina Barnstormers tour, this time in Boone, NC, which is my home.  I went to the game, and enjoyed watching it.

5.) The outcome of that Thursday night game in Boone was a surprise.  The ACC stars were defeated by a bunch of determined whippersnapping regional players who represented Appalachian State University (the host school), UNC-Asheville, Mars Hill College and Warren Wilson College. 

6.) The excellent players from those western North Carolina colleges played skillfully and victorioulsy against the seasoned ACC superstars.   Appalachian State guard Eduardo Bermudez was especially impressive with his determined penetration.  The talented unkonwns provided an amusing upset victory for the crowd, and proved their worth to  have been selected to compete against players of national stature.

7.)  With all due respect to that winning team, we must note a few observations about the losing team, and what happened in Boone on that Thursday night:

a.) Two or three of the Carolina boys were now playing ball using hands, feet, and bodies that are potentially worth millions of bucks as implements of basketball perfection in the NBA next year. So now, by participating in non-professional (essentially) pickup games,  they are risking damage to those valuable body-parts assets.  These champions were playing skillfully, but carefully, and not, shall we say?, as vehemently as they had fought in their other April (and March, and February, January, December) games. Also,

b.) Their bus broke down on the way from Hickory; this delay caused a late arrival in Boone, where they entered the Holmes Center court without , apparently, having eaten dinner.  Some notable players were seen scarfing down hotdogs during the game.  I'm not kidding.  I saw this with my own eyes from the third row.  Some local VIPs were out big bucks, having won a raffle that entitled them to dinner with the Tarheels at local Makoto's restaurant.  But the dinner never happened.  The boys from Chapel Hill and their Barnstormin' buddies entered the fray late, tired and hungry. 

c.) ... and flat worn-out. You could see it in their eyes. I have chosen one champion whose participation in that event must have happened something like this:

The Warrior

It was a long arc of victory.

  A tarheel tossed the ball away, propelled it high above the final fray. The buzzer buzzed the game away. All America saw new Champions smile and sway, shout and jump, and maybe pray. 

The warrior stood shell-shocked head and shoulders above the throng, his thrashing paint-war ended, his bruising battle won. He'd been tossed and beaten long enough.  He had fought, fierce and hard through teams and schemes; now he sailed on courts of long-tended dreams. Now he waltzed on air. Now he strode through hugs and thumps, handshakes, shouts and leaping chest-bumps. Their season-long marathon had ended.

  And here was begun a new ordeal for him--a whirlwind of vehement attention, a maelstrom of incessant intervention, spinning telescopic, mediopic, through macroscopic inquisition--without end. Like a freight train of bouncing balls, flashing bulbs  in shifting halls, the meddlesome media mavens called down their thrashing cloud upon the warrior, with a tunnel of confetti through a storm of forever being ready. 

We could see it in his eyes, though the rare smile cracked his intensity. 

It was the weight of the paint-war that had wounded him--the  persistent pounding of opponents that robbed his soul of comfort, and pierced his peace with pain. It summoned him, even now, to the next battle.

If this is Thursday, must be... 

Somewhere in Carolina, three nights later, the calling voice of conquest had not ceased; yeah, it has just begun again in him. Is there rest from the victor's onward quest? 

From deep within the loins of the champion came forth his cries; we heard them in his embattled eyes: Who will challenge me now? (Oh, but I am weary.)  This I discerned from across the court; this I saw in the warrior's heart. 

The upstart guys had won their prize, and claimed their forty minutes

in the skies,

to tell the grandkids all about.

   The champion shrugged. 

On such shoulders are the worlds of excellence 

played out.  

  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1168940/Obamas-fly-chef-860-miles-White-House--just-make-pizza.html

There is so much hypocrisy wrapped up in this single act that I can't hide my disappointment. 

I am wondering if mass revenge, lethal retribution which extends to populations, is somehow deeply embedded in the cultural roots of the United States. Certainly, I know some U.S. history of mass retribution that went from destroying entire towns to genocide. I guess I had hoped that somehow we would learn and move to a more sane position, but I fear we have not and will not. This embededness was shown in a different context in a comment by wwstaebler in response to a post by dickday where she quoted from Hawthorn's Scarlet Letter in reference to the tendency for power to evoke cruelty.

Read more »

I must confess to a somewhat rare case of writer's block. The cure for writer's block is to write your way out of it. What follows may just be a stream of consciousness, a cluster of thoughts, a collection of random things whose significance -- if there is any -- will become apparent later. Or maybe never.

There has been something rumbling around the back of my brain for weeks. Periodically, something will come to the forefront, spurred by current events -- yet, that something is also superceded by them, and the thought, the germ of an idea goes back to its cranial hiding place.

A book "discussion" at TPM leaves me really, really peeved at what seems to me to be blatant, "revisionist" history. The lack of diversity of those discussing said book is even more aggravating. The continuing "hidden" meme of conservative right that the President is a socialist, communist, fascist, reverse racist. The not-so-hidden meme that the nation's first black President is not fit for office, doesn't know what he is doing, is embarassing the Presidency, is offering policies that will fail, fail fail, that his wife is angry and socially inept. That the nation has magically moved past -- "trascended" -- race and racism, while all the while continuing to prove it still houses the ghosts of the past.

That the 41st anniversary of man's death comes and goes almost silently. That another passes whose legacy was built by challenging the notions of black inferiority and historical unimportance, fortunate to see one of his own rise to the nation's highest office. That a third pursues the "de facto" leadership of the party of Lincoln, that is now the party of Thurmond, Helms, Bachmann, Beck, Hannity and continuing cast of fools. (I know, I know... but it is my stream of consciousness.)

The forgotten link between the near complete plunder of European art treasures, a city on the Rhein and me. A President's European tour where he is standing in a place I once stood. A vivid flash of memory, a reminiscence of long-forgotten -- no, not forgotten, just pushed to the back of the mind -- friends and neighbors. A Google Earth aerial view of somewhere once called home. The streets I walked, stores I shopped, sights I saw, parks, pigeons, parades.  

Another TPM book discussion of a time in early April, when I was there and not here -- a time when the call was not "Drill, Baby, Drill," but "Burn, Baby, Burn." A passing reference by somebody somewhere to the "absurdity" of the institutional and systemic nature of racism in American life. The enthusiastic welcome of the commander-in-chief by his troops in a faraway place where the thing you want most is to just come home. Alive. Guns and wanton killing here at home.

Another sad anniversary of the near extermination of a people. And those people killing other people over land they cannot seem to find a way to share. Someone calling someone else a "liar" and a "blowhard." Other people calling people "liars" and "fabricators" because they said they were somewhere 63 years ago, freeing people from certain death. But the keepers of "history," are reluctant to acknowledge they were, in fact, there. 

Grammar and syntax and tense mangled, stick figures and crude maps, slowly. slowly the story is teased out, pieced together. A man, no, men, my father, no, not my father, men who looked like my father, came, gave aid and comfort, gave free, no, freedom, no, let them free? Different faces, different places, different days, weeks, months, years. People, older, younger, boys then, men now, women now, girls then. Thank you, a thousand thank yous. Come to my house. Meet my family -- what is left of my family, my new family. You are my family now, thankyouthankyouthankyou. You are to my house, our house, welcome always thank you. 

Two movie directors continue a spat. One says the other disrespects the accomplishments of his group. The other says the first doesn't "know" his "history." Left on the floor of a cutting room in an old-time movie studio is the Defense department commissioned footage that shows, yes, indeed, one is more right, and the other is more wrong. But more importantly it shows the keepers of history keep a lot history out of the history books, and out of movie theaters, even when those movies are meant to rally the folks back home. And in trying to find just a tiny piece of that history, the perpetuation of denial by the deniers -- in the most vicious and vile and studious and clinical terms -- is found instead. They pretend to be "scholarly debunkers of myths great and small," but are just bigots in the straightforward sense.

A paragraph in another writer's blog, that ordinarily would pass without reference bothers me today. And the "bother" is justified by another's comment. It shouldn't bother me

It's the day before Easter. Or I should say, it's the day before Sunday. It's just another Saturday, It's raining. and I've got writer's block.  

   (Posted with apologies to those who create and post their wonderful, true poetry.)

 

               JUST FOR A DAY

 

Seeking the sun behind the clouds is a worthy endeavor

to achieve, just for the day, a shimmer of light - a sense of warmth

Is this not the best adventure?

If we discard the worst and strive for the best

not just for us, but others too

For just a day, is this not the most glorious quest?

If we strive only to reject

those and that which are not of our choice or ideal

How, just for a day, will our goals ever be met?

To, just for the day, not to scorn or malign

or ignore, discard or condemn

But instead bestow regard for both yours and mine

This is not a hopeless wish or silly aim

but one that we can both enjoy

If only, just for a day, our wish is the same

And when the day passes

the choice will be ours to continue this quest,

Or opt to be asses!

     Simply the fact that the best people are people who aren't primarily driven by greed.

--David Kurtz at TPM [quoting Yglesias]

That suggests the error:  Greed as an end in itself, not a means.

"the love of money is the root of all evil" points to the error of greed taken as an end.  It's not that money is evil, but making it one's objective (love of X) above all other objectives is problematic.

A culture of competition is similar, wherein instead of competition serving a greater good, competitiveness takes over as the good itself, and we have things like "winning is the only thing" apparently from Sanders (and famously picked up by Lombardi) in sports.  One counterpoint is that what is important is "how/that you played the game".  Of course making THIS into an end in itself is a problem as well.  Interestingly, within the context of a finite game, greed as an end is quite acceptable compared to the role being described by Y (and my reflections here).  But when one treats life itself as a mere finite game, and treats people as means instead of holding them individually as ends, then one has a problem.

We might ask whether this, greed in modern society taken as primary, is a cultural failing or a moral failing.  And I'd also ask:

Is greed (in a large sense) the dominant factor (primary drive) in evolution?  And do we "believe in" evolution?

What this leads me towards is a kind of Social Darwinism wherein the greedy who also have skills rise to the top via survival of the fittest within the society.  This of course ignores other possibly competing societies with slightly different cultural biases (Darwinistic Socialism?) which might outlast a society of greed.   And it doesn't address politics directly, because rising to the top in game playing and money acquisition isn't necessarily about living in an oligarchy.

Fulton J. Sheen was the Archbishop for Rochester, New York, once upon a time. A pretty awesome and powerful position in those days. As a child of six or eight, he was THE representative of God on earth. I mean we had Pius the 12th or whatever as El Papa, but America did, after all, need its singular majesty telling Him how important we were.

Fulton had this New York Irish brogue, although he was born in El Paso, Illinois (born Peter John Sheen May 8, 1895 - December 9, 1979).  No 'aye laddies' type of brogue, but a singular aristocratic Irish brogue.  In the 19th century and early 20th century, all the immigrants segregated into neighborhoods, defacto and dejure.  Italians stuck with Italians, Germans stuck with Germans, Irish stuck with Irish. Oh, and it got crazier than that. I mean Irish Catholics stuck with Irish Catholics. It would be against God's Law for an Irish Catholic to marry an Irish Protestant like my grandmama did in the Twenties.  This was something that one only whispered about.

To further complicate the demography, the earliest Irish Settlers shunned the newer Irish Settlers regardless of religion. We had the 'Lace Curtain Irish'. HA

Fulton, therefore represented the Lace Curtain Irish Catholics but with a new Egalitarian Edge, so to speak. He emphasized the Universality of the Catholic Church and like to emphasize that 'catholic' in Latin meant Universal.

Fulton went from being one of the kings of radio to being a religious king on television. This is a protestant country. Richfield, Minnesota might have banned one from selling their property to people of the Negro Race or the Jewish Race, but there were enclaves in this country where you were not to associate with Catholics. We started this country with people who despised the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope, at the same time.

But Roman Catholicism was the largest single 'sect' of Christianity in this country, so it had to be dealt with and Fulton took full advantage of this fact.

Fulton was so good at speaking about Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church that he had a large Protestant following.  It was just that a lot of his Protestant listeners would not admit that they rarely missed his presentations.

In order to further contextualize Fulton, you have to understand some fundamental beliefs in this country at the time. Belief held by anywhere between 75% and 90% of the citizens of this country:

GOD FORBIDS WOMEN FROM BEING PRIESTS, RABBIS, MINISTERS and most women of course were barred from becoming lawyers, doctors, or Congressmen (hence the nomen).

GOD FORBIDS ABORTION-EVER. Even if Mom will die and we are not sure the three month old fetus will survive.

THE CATHOLIC GOD FORBIDS CONTRACEPTION IN ANY FORM.  Irish Catholics would have 12 children while Irish Protestants would stop at 4. Sex was a terrible 'thing' and a sin against God, but what are you going to do? I mean what is a mother to do? . I mean we need children. Ahhhh well. Thinking about sex was as bad as having sex.  I mean murder was bad, very bad. But sex...well I digress.
                       
Fulton would present himself in full regalia. Now there were very few color tvs in the '50's but I note in the taped recordings I have been watching, he wore the full bright colors of the Roman Clerical Aristocracy.  He had the cute cap, a cape, necklaces with the crucifix and sacred medals, pretty bows and full dress. I do not mean to say he was fully dressed. I mean he wore a full dress.  You could see his shoes though and they were not Sears-Roebuck in origin. And the colors would be dark reds, pinks, whites....I mean talk about peacocks.

Fulton would be present himself upon a rather meager stage by these day's standards. There would be drapes behind him, of course. There would also be an ugly, elementary school blackboard. And no one had any doubt that this was LECTURE TIME. And we were not to visit with our neighbors or chew gum. I mean this man, although a media celebrity, was recognized as one of the foremost Catholic theologians in his time, having written 73 books.

He would start off with chalk in hand and write something on the black board like:

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS

Fulton would write with the same kind of flourish as he spoke. Then he would write something like:

Whether the devil is directly the cause of sin.

He is really dealing with the old phrase: The devil made me do it.

Now Fulton would go on and on about how we live in a sinful world and temptations are everywhere, ready willing and able to lure us into sinful actions. And then he would go on to tell us that we are the actors. That the devil may attempt to lure us, to trick us, but it is we that must act. No one, no devil can make us act. Even though I think at times, in some roles, Harrison Ford could not have thought up his style on his own.  But I digress.

Now Fulton would go into the anecdote.  He would say something like:

Now Mary came with her parents, and I had known Mary's parents for decades. Good solid Americans. Good solid Catholics. Charitable but hard workers none the less. And I noticed at our little gathering that Mary was looking at the floor and would not address me with her eyes. Well I know that when someone averts their eyes they are hiding something. And at her tender age of 19 or 20 it would not be that hard to discern what sin she was hiding.

So I casually approached her and asked her when she had given her last confession. Still looking at the floor she said that she had been studying philosophy at University and that she no longer cared for religion.  Because she had come to understand the truth of things.

So I took her to my library, and I asked her if she had any thoughts about Immanuel Kant as I pulled the tome from its place.  Oh no I have not Father.

Well, I said have you read this essay from Frederic Nietzche, and she responded she had not.

And I pulled four other books by St. Aquinas, and Bertrand Russell and Martin Luther and St. Augustine well, she had read none of them.

And so I took her hand and said, Are you ready now my child to give me your confession? And weeping she finally looked at me and said, Yes Father.

And it was then that I found the truth of things.

You see we sin and then we deny the sin and when we can NO LONGER HIDE THE SIN WE
TURN OUR BACKS UPON GOD!!!!

I can see him now and I have not even witnessed this particular segment in forty five years or more. Ha

Then Fulton would proceed to matters of the state. He might note that a great senator has responsibilities to his God, his country, his state, his constituency. And then he would discuss how a politician makes decisions and how difficult this decision making might be.

Oh it had nothing to do with separation of church and state or some political argument. He would just go on a tangent-my god Fulton liked tangents-about how difficult life was for the powerful to make decisions and how we needed to seek the right and the truth and the love of God......

All this accomplished with the chalk still in his hand at times. Then he might write another thought from Aquinas:

Now the will...can be moved by two things. First, by its object, inasmuch as the apprehended appetible is said to move the appetite;. Secondly, by that agent which moves the will inwardly to will and this is none other than either the will itself or God. 

Then of course, Fulton would attempt to define appetible--he would really only latch onto three or four difficult words or concepts per show.  He did not wish to lose his audience but he knew that to spread the word, the rule of simplicity must be kept at all times.

Then he would go into sinning again, raising his voice slowly until he was close to shouting.

And in the end, (if you watch, his eyes would avert to the clock from time to time) he would raise his arms to heaven and say something like:

AND IT IS ALL FOR THE GLORY OF GOD THAT WE LIVE OUR DAYS.

Or some such silliness.  

But if you wish to learn how to write or to speak or to lecture, do not omit Fulton from your curriculum. Nay I say.  Bishop Sheen was one of the greatest.

Oh, he would not flourish today.  But in his time, he was a liberal. He was against the Vietnam War as early as 1967.  He was against segregation. He was against those who believed not in charity.  He praised the 'unwashed'. He lauded the humble.  He pleaded with the rich and the powerful to show mercy, to show Christian values.

A blogger who is new to me, JG wrote a nice piece on Notre Dame today. I had been contemplating a blog on Fulton, an important symbol of my youth.  I knew I was witnessing greatness when I watched him as a child. I just did not know why.

The picture is from Wiki.  Nice wrap up on his life and times with references there.

From today's LA Times we get this story. "What recession? Places like Sioux Falls, S.D., prove resilient"

"One chunk of the nation has avoided much of the current economic misery: the region from North Dakota to Texas, most of it sparsely populated. This area includes five of the six states that analysts at Economy.com have classified as not yet in recession. And other states in the Rocky Mountain West -- from New Mexico to Idaho -- are facing relatively mild downturns...

For decades, Sioux Falls was a modest agricultural outpost, a place for farmers to pick up new equipment or have a fancy dinner. Its main employer was a hog-butchering plant. But in the early '80s, Citibank and other financial companies began to open branch offices here to escape New York usury laws that hampered their efforts to expand into the credit card market.

"People were very proud," [Mayor] Munson recalled. "It lifted the whole being of Sioux Falls to say we can get a corporation like Citi to come here."

Read more »

Bailout and Stimulus: My Alternative Proposal; I Told You So...
by Ron Powell

Back in January, after the Senate voted to release the second $350 billion of TARP money, President Obama said that he was "gratified" he'd been given the authority to "maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses." Prior to that time I had composed and submitted the following article to several news organizations:

"In light of the inability or unwillingness of the Bush Administration and nearly all of the recipient financial institutions to account for the 350 billion dollars already distributed, and in keeping with (then) President-elect Obama's assertions regarding changing the mindset as well as the behavior of those in Washington who would propose to solve our economic and financial problems, I am proposing an alternative to the 'bail-out' scenarios that seem to be the standard response to the financial difficulties that major corporations and financial institutions apparently have come to expect when their greed and/or incompetence, resulting in bad decisions and bad management, threatens their existence.

"It is, at times like this, critical to establish and pursue alternative modes of looking at and solving problems of this nature. Otherwise, all we can expect is more of the same from different sectors of the economy. If we are to break the cycle of failure and bail-out we must shut the door on the prospect of a direct government / taxpayer funded financial fix.

"My suggestion is to establish a national credit union with a portion of the remaining 350 billion now being requested. Membership and credit lines or limits could be linked to taxpayer status. Make credit available to those who require it on a no, low, or deferred interest basis. Repayment plans could be linked to federal withholding from paychecks or other similar arrangements. Give us the opportunity and option to seek home mortgage financing, auto loans, education loans, business loans and even credit cards from an entity that is directly responsible for the appropriate use and distribution of our tax dollars.

"The notion that the unavailability of credit will cripple and ultimately destroy the economy can be countered by making an alternative source of credit available and accessible to the people who are being asked to fund and underwrite this 'bail-out'. My suggestion may seem primitive or naive, but the operative term here is 'alternative'.

"If the difficulties and problems we are faced with are rooted, at least in part, in the drying up of credit in the marketplace, then we should take some of the 'bail-out' money and make credit available directly to taxpayers by creating a Federal Taxpayers Credit Union and stop giving our money to people who cannot and will not address the needs of the average citizen in a meaningful way."

As much as I tried, I could not get any one to publish it.  This is a primary reason why I decided to launch my own blog.

Now, just over two months later, during his much discussed appearance on the Leno 'Tonight Show', President Obama stated that we have to find other ways to "maintain the flow of credit to families and businesses" Obama told Leno and his viewers that his administration plans to "open up separate credit lines outside of banks for small businesses" and "set up a securitized market for student loans and auto loans outside of the banking system" in order to "get credit flowing again".

During the past two months I did not read or hear any commentary that reflected my views or ideas on the subject. None of the recognized op-ed writers or political pundits on TV were making comments or suggestions similar to the one I proposed, but I couldn't get my simple proposal / comment published.

It is not very often that those of us who are passionate about writing to express our opinions or educate the public are able to claim that they got it right. However, in this case I believe that not only did I get it right in principle, but I got it right in terms of the mechanisms that may be used in bringing my ideas into being. Rarely does a writer derive any real satisfaction or gain a sense of pride in being able to express a great big "I told you so..."

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog,  The Modern Times Post. 

April 11, 2009 - by Murry Katz

Please bear with me as this is my first blog on my own.  As I first reported here, the first puppy, will be a Portuguese Water Dog and will arrive at the White House, Tuesday. It was adopted with the help of Senator Ted Kennedy's family.

The puppy, a male is known as Charlie (the name of my dad's first dog, a Standard Poodle, a female (dad is strange)) but I assume the Obamas will rename him.

Now here is some good stuff.  While Charlie is a purebred, the kennel had sold him to someone who gave him back.  Sadly, this is all too common. So, the Obamas will be re-homing Charlie which is a very good thing.

As Charlie is from the same lineage as the Kennedy dogs, there will be a dog related to the Kennedy's in the white house which make my dad real happy.

If I may say a word for us purebred dogs, if we pee, do we not ruin the carpet?  We are dogs just like any other, we are loyal, love, serve, and protect.  Please don't look down or discount us.  I came from a good home, bred by reputable breeders who's only goal was to breed healthy, hardy dogs to carry on the line.  And, I just want you to know, I enjoy going through the garbage, and rolling in the mud just like any other dog.

Just  a word about the Portuguese Water Dog.  I am proud to say we are cousins (about 3000 years ago).  They are loving, independent, and intelligent dogs and are easily trained in obedience and agility skills (me, I'm a klutz). They are generally friendly to strangers, (not like a Scottie who shall remain unnamed), and enjoy being petted (who doesn't).  They have a multi-octave voice and  will communicate their desires vocally and behaviorally to their owner. Their bark is loud and distinctive (especially to Republicans). They may engage in "expressive panting," by making a distinct "ha-ha-ha-ha" sound as an invitation to play or to indicate a desire for nearby food (a dog after my own heart). They sometimes whine (and what's wrong with that!).

So, please join me in welcoming the first pup to the White House.

Now if you will excuse me I've gotta' go whine, it's time to take my parents for a nice long walk...Murry

In its vain, and vaguely sickening attempt to find some way to bring President Obama down to their level or to find something as base about him as the embarrassment who was identified as our president for the prior eight years, the far right fools who have taken over the Republican Party spent half the week either distorting things the President said to adoring crowds in Europe, or accusing him of subjugating our nation to royalty (after his wife was accused of insulting royalty by touching the Queen).

The clearest sign that these out of touch hate mongers---inheritors of the mantle on which the careers of Father Coughlin and Westbrook Pegler were born---do not understand what our country is all about, was their attack on the President for explaining that

we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values

Read more »

 Well in my blog today I'm going to tell more about me then I thought I ever would.

  I.ve been thinking about this since LisB posted her wonderful peom the other day. Human emotions took over my thought process when I read it and I was very mad when I commented on her blog. To those of you who know LisB you know she is to sweet of a woman for anyone to hurt.

  But now I've calmed down a bit and figured out why it bothered me so much(besides the obvious reason). When I was a boy growing up my stepdad abused me on a regular basis. That is why when I read the comments on my blogs(yes I do read them) and people say I write from the heart it kind of shocks me.

  The reason it shocks me is that here in the real world (instead of cyberworld) if you asked people that know me they would use a few words like   cold and calm under pressure  to decribe me.  I learned at an early age not to show emotions at all. It has never bothered me much that I seem to have only one emotion until now. Oh the one emotion I've always been able to show is anger had problems with it for years somewhat under control now.

  So I'm posting this so maybe some of you can help me relearn what human emotions are. I'm going to list them and say a little about each one maybe you can tell me if I'm wrong or not.Boy I seem to really like listing thing don't I?

  1) Love:  Well this one I really have problems with maybe thats why I've been divorced 2 times. I thought love ment you wanted to be with someone and really do everything you can to make them happy. It doesn't work for me but don't know anything else.

 2) Hate: This one is pretty obvious. and hate is good if used in the right way.

3)envy,pitty and jelousy: These all belong together becouse they are the most destructive and useless emontions people have. Without these emotions the world would be a better place.

 Well thats all the emotions I can think of right now. If I missed any let me know. And if I'm wrong about any criticize me I can take it.

 Oh I just thought about another one selfish. I am a little selfish. I dont get a lot of computer time and I guess its a little selfish that I use most of it reading blogs and chatting. I should be answering my comments instead. But like I said I do read them I hope you don't mind this sefishness to much.

I hope everybody is having a great day.        THE END

In the continuing saga of How Religion Twists the World, the next domestic battleground looks to be Indiana. South Bend, to be exact. This time it's the Catholics! I feel that I can happily say that since I put in more than my fair share of time and lessons with some very psychotic Roman-collared clergy. The current upset has to do with the invitation extended to President Obama to deliver the commencement speech on May 17 to the 2009 graduating class of University of Notre Dame. Already people are planting their feet and saying, "Hell no, we won't go. How can you give an honor to an abortionist." Well, you opened your arms to George W. Bush in 2001, a man, who, as the six-year governor of Texas, executed 152 inmates, a figure unmatched by any modern governor. And he did it all with the help of Alberto Gonzalez, a card carrying Catholic, who ineffectually presented clemency briefs on the first 57 before essentially giving up and just letting them be killed, good thieve, bad thieves and probably a few in-betweeners.

Francis Cardinal George, the Catholic headman of Chicago, blasted the mother ship school when he said, "It is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation." The words were spoken on a video, so it is hard to tell if the 'c' in catholic was meant as lower or upper case, despite how it appears in print. The good cardinal needs to clarify that, and if it was a small 'c' then he needs to dig out his dictionary and learn what obviously would be a new meaning for him. If it's a BIG 'C' he needs to act like one.  My guess is he meant capital 'C' and that he secretly pines for the days when George W. ran the world. Now, there was an anti-abortionist worth following, even if he is known to have told some mighty lies that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Before I walked away from the Roman Catholic Church, traditional Catholics generally voted the Democratic ticket, the party of the working class who filled the Sunday collection plates with hard earned money. But over the years things have changed, and so, too, have many Catholics, who have generally moved politically right to quietly partner with fundamentalist Christian groups, joining hands over the abortion issue. The genuine oddness in all of this is the fundies don't really believe that Catholics are 'real' Christians, since they believe in transubstantiation, parthenogenesis - the loopy idea that the Son of God sprang from the pristine womb of a virgin, which is too much for those people who get lit by tongues of holy fire which take over their spirits and allow them to speak in lost languages of scattered Biblical tribes - and follow the word of a man who lives in a Mediterranean palace and has more money than their version of God can imagine. But, then there is that single issue that allows them to meet out there along the fringe.

Poor Catholics. It's hard to know which way to go, which path to follow, since all paths seem to leave more and more behind. Too bad you didn't move a little quicker to protect your children from the epidemic of pederasts who prowled the pews and aisles looking for fresh meat in the form of all those good Catholic children whose parents told them that the Fathers were all good, when, in fact, you knew that many of them were not. So, you secretly passed the bad ones around like plague-laden rats.  Wow, that was very "full of grace." And you're the ones who hammer Obama? Good luck with that one, guys.

So, many of us left for less deranged digs, and although there are some still unhappily wandering, looking to fill the void left behind by your lies, many of us are more than happy to be gone and onto something else. And by the way, we voted for Obama. Yeah, I know, we've fallen far, but we've landed on our feet. That's what can happen to some who were tested by the fires and violence so early in life. We developed scars. And smiles too, since it's nice not to be so pin-headed anymore. Of course, most of us didn't go to Notre Dame, even if we were forced to root on Saturdays for the Fightin' Irish. (Sidenote: my grandfather from County Sligo, never could understand why all those black guys were running around with big-lettered "Fightin' Irish" all over their chests. Of course, he didn't call them "blacks" back in the 60s; he always called them something else. But most people I knew called them something else, too, even if they didn't play for Notre Dame. That's the way things were back then, and how, in many places, they still are. Oh well, some things take a little longer to get used to. The London Times used to make the Irish in cartoons all look like monkeys. Irish men and women looking just like monkeys! Imagine! And that was long before Rupert Murdoch and the New York Post got around to it, apology notwithstanding.)

So as the issue heats up and graduation day gets closer, do your best to keep from going the simian route. I know how some of you Irish boys can get all laced up with the weekend 'spirit' and end up doing things you can only spill in the confessional. (Does anyone actually do that anymore?) But try to remember that there but for the grace of time and history go all of us, evolutionarily speaking. (There's another point of departure with your fundie buds.) And try to treat our president better than Dick Cheney treated him: Dick's Svengali angel kept him screwed to his seat, his bad back nothing but a flimsily poor excuse. Try to act more human than our ex-VP was able to do: despite knowing better, he couldn't allow his inner racist to take a day off and allow for history and transitions to proceed smoothly.

This time the world's watching you, even those of us who walked away and no longer root for your football team. But basketball ... well, that's another story. We never rooted for you guys back home. It was always St. Joe's or Villanova, Temple in a pinch. I know, more bad news, just when you don't need to hear another word. Oh, well.

This is intended to be a somewhat continuing series in honor of National Poetry Month. I intend to post this series two or three times a week throughout the month of April with various themes.

The theme for this offering is, "Art is Sex."

In this and each of the offerings, I will present some poetry of note and a few of my own. I would hope that in the comments, a poem that follows the theme, original or one dear to the heart, might be shared.

 

With that, let's continue the series with...

 

 

Art is Sex

 

 

To speak of morals in art is to speak of legislature in sex. Art is the sex of the imagination.

-- George Jean Nathan
"Art," American Mercury (July 1929)

 

 

Out of the arms of one love
and into the arms of another.

-- Charles Bukowski

When I cannot look at your face
I look at your feet.
Your feet of arched bone,
your hard little feet.

I know that they support you,
and that your sweet weight
rises upon them.

Your waist and your breasts,
the doubled purple
of your nipples,
the sockets of your eyes
that have just flown away,
your wide fruit mouth,
your red tresses,
my little tower.

But I love your feet
only because they walked
upon the earth and upon
the wind and upon the waters,
until they found me.

-- Pablo Neruda
Your Feet

 

 

I know I am but summer to your heart,
And not the full four seasons of the year;
And you must welcome from another part
Such noble moods as are not mine, my dear.
No gracious weight of golden fruits to sell
Have I, nor any wise and wintry thing;
And I have loved you all too long and well
To carry still the high sweet breast of Spring.
Wherefore I say: O love, as summer goes,
I must be gone, steal forth with silent drums,
That you may hail anew the bird and rose
When I come back to you, as summer comes.
Else will you seek, at some not distant time,
Even your summer in another clime.

-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
I Know I Am But Summer To Your Heart

 

 

You open to me
a little,
then grow afraid
and close again,
a small boy
fearing to be hurt,
a toe stubbed
in the dark,
a finger cut
on paper.

I think I am free
of fears,
enraptured, abandoned
to the call
of the Bacchae,
my own siren,
tied to my own
mast,
both Circe
and her swine.

But I too
am afraid:
I know where
life leads.

The impulse
to join,
to confess all,
is followed
by the impulse
to renounce,

and love--
imperishable love--
must die,
in order
to be reborn.

We come
to each other
tentatively,
veterans of other
wars,
divorce warrants
in our hands
which we would beat
into blossoms.

But blossoms
will not withstand
our beatings.

We come
to each other
with hope
in our hands--
the very thing
Pandora kept
in her casket
when all the ills
and woes of the world
escaped.

-- Erica Jong
Middle Aged Lovers, II

 

 

Now who could take you off to tiny life
In one room or in two rooms or in three
And cork you smartly, like the flask of wine
You are? Not any woman. Not a wife.
You'd let her twirl you, give her a good glee
Showing your leaping ruby to a friend.
Though twirling would be meek. Since not a cork
Could you allow, for being made so free.

A woman would be wise to think it well
If once a week you only rang the bell.

-- Gwendolyn Brooks
The Independent Man

 

 

The First Time

by

Justice Putnam

 

footballfridayafternoon
momanddaddownthehall
intheirroom

mustbequiet
orwillbefoundout

whyispleasure
suchdoom?

(Fullerton, California 1975)

 

 

Cupid and Psyche

by

Justice Putnam

 

Alabaster wings
And a passionate embrace

A kiss and then
The longing.

The mind swoons
In erotic dream

Angel-like
And electricity.

(Montmorancy, France 1994)

 

Compulsory Surrender

by

Justice Putnam

 

Slow thoughts
Slipping into the stream
Sunlit crystal memory
Sliding
Moving

Feeling her firm breasts
With my tongue
Kissing her firm lips
With my fingers

Moaning
Crying
Laughing

Gasping the words
Of whispers and
Silhouetted
Silent intent

Greens and reds
Before my eyes
Her eyes pleading
Penetrating to my soul

Her head thrown back
Hips quivering
Wet

Could any journey
Be more real and now?

(Mill Valley, California 1986)

 

Testament

by

Justice Putnam

 

Angular lines and dark hair
Feline eyes and crimson lips

A scent of the Oranges
Of Hieronymous Bosch

The music of her Heart
The ecstasy of her Touch.

The fullness of her Mind
The sky of her eyes

A warm breeze
On the hills

At the end
Of Time.

The coolness of her breath
And the sweetness of her kiss

Can change a world at war
Into a Universe of bliss.

So why oh brothers
Why can't we see?

That to simply know her
Is to know infinity.

(San Francisco, California 2007)

 

The Truth Be Told

by

Justice Putnam

 

I would worship
Your beautiful feet
Massage each tired
But receptive toe.

I would press and knead
And rub
Then kiss
And worship
Your feet as though

Your feet are
The pinnacle
Of Beauty

Sent from Heaven
And should be
Exalted so.

But I really
Should tell you
What I really
Think

And I really
Must confess

I only worship
Your beautiful feet

Because I worship
Your perfect breasts.

I would worship
Your breasts
As I kissed
The small
Of your back

I would worship
Your breasts
As I touched you
So that

I would worship
Your breasts
As I kissed
You on
The lips

I would worship
Your breasts
As I caressed
Your smooth
Round hips

But as I've worshipped
Your breasts

Not as some
Timeless Art

Or some primitive
Fetish carved
In a Burmese
Valley

Or found
On some
Distant rampart.

As I've worshipped
Your breasts

Without any
Sense of Time

I found I worshipped
Much more than that

I worship

Your Heart
Your Soul
Your Mind.

And though
I've never
Kissed your feet

The small
Of your back

Or anything
In between

I must admit
To being
A little weak

I must admit
What I
Really think

And I really
Must confess

I still dream
Of kissing
Your beautiful feet

And I still worship
Your perfect breasts.

(Berkeley, California 2006)

 

An Oil Lamp Turned Low

by

Justice Putnam

 

Warm breath blessed
Etched against
The palace of her skin

Burn in that grace
Embraced
Cradled in her
Soft fragrance

Like a slow boat rocking
Or the steady yellow flicker
Of an oil lamp
Turned low

See her
Kneeled over
Feel the dance
Of her small cries

Forgotten doors and windows
Between the moon and time

Her open eyes
The smell of her hair

An oil lamp
Turned low

(Bastia, Corsica 1985)

 

 

© 2009 by Justice Putnam
Fleur de Sel Musique
and Mechanisches-Strophe Verlagswesen

 

Degree Or Not Degree, Is That The Question?

by Ron Powell

Arizona State University spokeswoman, Sharon Keeler, said that the University awards honorary degrees to recognize individuals for their work and accomplishments spanning their lifetime: "Because President Obama's body of work is yet to come, it's inappropriate to recognize him at this time," she said. She went on to say that, "It's someone who's really outstanding, who has made outstanding contributions in their field,...Previous recipients of honorary degrees from ASU had long-established careers in their fields of work, and they aren't necessarily affiliated with ASU."

An honorary degree or a degree honoris causa (Latin: 'for the sake of the honor') is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements (such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations). The degree itself is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master's degree and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the institution in question. Usually the degree is conferred as a way of honoring a distinguished visitor's contributions to a specific field, or to society in general. The university often derives a greater benefit by association with the person so honored, than the honoree derives by receiving the award.

It is with this insight and revelation in mind, and tongue planted firmly in cheek, that I offer the following:

The degree to which the degree factory at Arizona State University has gone to defend the decision not to be honored by awarding an honorary degree to President Obama is, to a certain degree, a manifestation of the hypocrisy that is involved in the awarding of such degrees as a means of bestowing honors and privileges on, often not so honorable, privileged fat-cats and big-wigs, who, to one degree or another, have no greater qualification for the accolades, ceremoniously uttered during a perfunctory presentation, than the ability to pick up a pen and write a check, thus displaying a proficiency in the skill of penmanship, an acquired talent through which, by varying degrees, those who have become so intellectually advanced and so academically accomplished, they have greatly benefited society by leaving the 3^rd grade.

By the way, Sharon Keeler, for your outstanding body of working in performing slavishly on behalf of your masters at ASU, to defend, rationalize, excuse, and justify a decision which is in no way what so ever affiliated with anything that makes sense, and the outstanding contribution you have made to your field for doing this with a straight face, The Uncles at Thomas Cabin University have your honorary Simon Degree ready. You may pick it up at the drive-through window.

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

Political Irony: A Sign of the Times

By Ron Powell

Historically, the majority of white people in America have voted for Republican candidates in the belief that the economically, politically and socially conservative republicans would see to it that black progress would not encroach upon white lives, white livelihoods, and white life styles.  Since the advent of the Civil Rights Movement, more than forty years ago, the expectation was that the Republicans would keep black people at bay economically, politically, and socially, to ensure that blacks would not take away all to which whites felt entitled, or all for which whites felt that they had worked and thus earned. Now the country has turned to a black man in the hope that he will do, for them, precisely what many whites had repeatedly voted for, and elected, Republicans to not do for black people. 

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

A side effect of the massive foreclosure crisis is that a great many number of homes sit vacant waiting to be vandalized, stripped of any and all valuable resources and generally made worthless. The true owners of these properties are sometimes generally unknown or not interested in being responsible for them. In some cases the banks who own the property are leaving the former owners in possession because its too much money or hassle to sell them. The banks are walking away from property. With all of these owners giving up on property i propose that changes be made to adverse possession laws in order to facilitate the renovation of these abandoned properties and get the title in the hands of people who want them.

I thought about this as a means to dealing with some of the housing crisis after reading this article linked via john cole.

When the woman who calls herself Queen Omega moved into a three-bedroom house here last December, she introduced herself to the neighbors, signed contracts for electricity and water and ordered an Internet connection.

What she did not tell anyone was that she had no legal right to be in the home.

Ms. Omega, 48, is one of the beneficiaries of the foreclosure crisis. Through a small advocacy group of local volunteers called Take Back the Land, she moved from a friend's couch into a newly empty house that sold just a few years ago for more than $400,000.

Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said about a dozen advocacy groups around the country were actively moving homeless people into vacant homes -- some working in secret, others, like Take Back the Land, operating openly.

In addition to squatting, some advocacy groups have organized civil disobedience actions in which borrowers or renters refuse to leave homes after foreclosure.

Cole was actually upset that these people were moving into these properties.

These people aren't just "squatting" or engaging in "civil disobedience" or striking a blow against tyranny or whatever the hell else you want to call it. They are stealing, they are trespassing, and they are breaking the damned law. And while the NY times may think it is glamorous or sexy or a real power to the people moment, they should be clear about what is going on here and what a mess this sort of behavior causes for the authorities. If they can't figure out why this is problematic, maybe they should read their own damned NY Times magazine about the problems squatters and illegals and looters cause in Cleveland. Give Tom Brancatelli a call and ask what he thinks about this.

Being a good law student the first thing i thought of when i heard people were moving into property and acting as if they owned it was a property law concept called "adverse possession". For those unfamiliar with the term adverse possession is when you occupy the property of another as if its yours, with out their permission, continuously for a number of years as determined by statute. I have been told that all state statutes also require that the person act under "color of title", meaning that they have to have some paper or document telling them they own the property. In any solution involving changes to the adverse possession laws as a fix for housing this would be changed to a "claim of title". The length of this time varies from state to state. For an example of an adverse possession statute scheme see here.

In my mind the biggest obstacle to using adverse possession as a means to fill the empty houses or to give people a chance to keep their homes is the time requirement. In california it takes five (5) years of possession before you can make your claim and try to gain marketable title to the property. During that time you must also pay property taxes, something i support as part of the requirement. It is less likely that you can convince a responsible party to take over abandoned property, invest in it to the point it becomes valuable, if that investment could be taken back by the bank or other entity in four (4) years when the market has recovered somewhat. I propose changing the time to eighteen (18)months.

If you believe that this period is too short and would lead to people essentially stealing land that others are being responsible for this change could be made in a way to be tailored for the housing crisis. Make this a statute that is available only after foreclosure of a property when such property has been uninhabited for 3 months. Other arrangements could be made for those who wish to try and stay in the house.

The reason i am advocating for an increased incentivization for adverse possession is that the purpose of adverse possession statutes is to deal with exactly the problems we have now, underutilized land.

Natural Rights:

Adverse possession has somewhat of a "labor" basis. It allows a person to acquire property interests through the productive use of land that has fallen into disuse. The doctrine can be viewed as dealing with circumstances where previously owned land reverts to the commons through non-use (and a failure to monitor) and may be claimed by another who applies his or her labor to remove the land from its natural state.

Utilitarian Theory:

The utilitarian justification has two branches. First, adverse possession rewards productive use of land over extended non-use. This justification is not strictly utilitarian, for it does not always (or even usually) give title to more productive users --- only when the true owner is making no use (the market will help ensure that less productive uses are transferred to more productive uses, but the market often cannot work when the true owner is unaware of his ownership). It is true, as the question suggests, that the doctrine considers non-use of land to be wasteful, but the tax requirement in most western states reduces the risk that fallow lands will be subject to adverse possession. Second, the doctrine is utilitarian in the sense that it makes land more marketable---reducing stale claims and reducing litigation (and the risk of litigation).

Those of you who read the NYT article on the lady who took set up shop in that house will realize that she isnt planning on staying long term. However she might change her mind if she knew that the property could be hers in a year and a half if she manages to be a decent homeowner. Even if she leaves, someone else could "tack" on to her possession and then claim ownership. Adverse possession seems like a good way to deal with the problem of massive foreclosures and get the housing market back on a level footing. Without so many foreclosures on the market prices will not be as depressed and fewer people will be underwater.

Adverse Possession is one an old and well known legal doctrine and should provide a useful tool in this crisis. In fact i might go get a house right now...

How unbelievable, that my people - the remnants of the Holocaust, the children of the survivors of Belsen and Auschwitz - should have become the purveyors, and exemplars extraordinaire, of the most modern method of efficient extermination.

 Pilotless aircraft, controlled from the ground, that can destroy a man or a house, or a village or a town,  at the push of a button in a room thousands of miles away in a distant country.  This is the successful business of the Israeli armaments industry - now exporting their products of liquidation around the globe.  This is our children's brave new world, where everyone is a potential target of this so-easy, hi-tech killing. No court, no trial, no justice, no humanity - just the hum of the deadly unmanned drone as it hovers overhead and turns day into night.

 

Welcome to Hell. Thank God I was not born today.

This Easter Sunday, we celebrate the resurrection from death of Jesus Christ, the Son of our living God who became a man so that God, our common heavenly Creator from whom our inalienable rights come, would also become known to us.  Yes, our inalienable rights come from God, our Creator.  Thus proclaims our birth certificate as a nation: The Declaration of Independence in Anno Domini 1776.  Charles Darwin published his book, "Origin of the Species," in 1859.  Karl Marx proclaimed the "Communist Manifesto," in 1848.  Too late for "the monkeys" to influence America's Founders; too late for the communist-marxist to shape the Framers' thoughts.  We thank Almighty God for this, for, America is a real "miracle." 
For the first time in recorded human history, human beings can choose heads of State, their own leaders, representatives and government administrators from their own free will and only with their own consent!  Such a deed touches the very "shores of Eternity!"  Human beings are indeed mortal.  The Holy Bible tells us that God had to establish "cherubim," to guard the entrance to the tree of eternal life.  We can accomplish great things, from building skyscrappers and rocketships, to discovering scientific equations that accurately describe relationships between physical elements from which we construct atomic bombs.  In Psalms 8, again, the Holy Bible declares God created us just "a little less" than He is.  God cannot die; we can.  Our Creator had to humble us by structuring a physical environment governed by the laws of Thermodynamics, the second of which is Entropy.  In this world, things are predisposed to decay.  The Earth is a wonderful life planet from which we obtain all resources required to fulfill our human needs, but there are also bacteria and viruses that cause disease. Still, human beings, though mortal, have eternity in their hearts, minds and souls; thus declares the Holy Bible in Ecclesiastes.  After biological death, they "wonder what's next," or "where they are going."  We know the difference between the transient and the permanent, between the temporal and the eternal, between advantage and disadvantage, between what is good and what is evil, between what is loving and what is wicked.  The Greeks and the Romans were so self-impressed with human capacities for thought and geometrical symmetry, that they self-arrogated the wishful fantasy of being "gods."  The planets in our solar system are named after many of these false deities such as "Jupiter," "Neptune," and "Mars."  Then we come to understand that God already understood that we would covet immortality on earth, even in the flesh, in order to save ourselves from Entropy, not only in our own selves, but also in the physical environment.  He made it impossible for biological flesh to become immortal.  Humans, however, seldom give up a coveted status born of greed and lust; thus, research in "cryogenics" or "life extension," arrogantly and pridefully marches on, but to no avail.  What did God do to give us rest from our own lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes and the pride of human life?  Out of compassion for us, God sent His own Son, Jesus Christ, to live as a man and to die as a man, but also to, once and for all, teach us about real immortality.  Christ rose from the dead - the only one who has ever, because He was also God.  And eternal life is obtained only AFTER biological death by our faith in Christ.  Christianity helps us face our humanity in a confident, truthful and real, down-to-earth, and scientific way.  Judeo-Prophetic Christian morality is the most salient, common sense, true-to-real, and sober worldview; it engenders spiritual logic from which we obtain discernment, encouragement, strength and providential fulfilment, as well as spiritual maturity, in worshipping the true God of the Universe from whom all our secured blessings flow = "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."  We are no longer "wandering souls."  Have a great and joyous Easter.  Christ lives!  He has risen!

 

David Kurtz notes in his TPM blog post that Mid America CropLife Association (MACA) has their panties in a twist over the First Lady's organic garden and has written to defend the chemically intensive farming practices as a necessity of modern farming.

George Packer wrote a fascinating article for The New Yorker the other day that picks up on some thoughts on ideology I've been having lately.  Now my thoughts on American political ideology are such that I believe modern moderates like Obama and many other Democrats stand for a type of conservatism that is natural to our politics but not acknowledged because of the radicalism that has taken over the movement conservative.  Movement conservative, from my perspective, seek to radically change the country through policy driven toward some mythical earlier time when everything was to thier liking.  This is radical right wing ideology and not traditional conservatism.  On the other hand, Democrats and so called liberals for the most part seek to protect and preserve our uniquely American laws, institutions and programs.  Twentieth Century programs like the New Deal and laws like the Civil and Voting rights Acts are defended by the Democrats as part of the American tradition.  Individual rights like a woman's right to choose, marriage equality and freedom of speech are championed again by the Democrats.   Tried and true institutions like the Department of Education and the United Nations are deemed essential  and must be protected.  These aren't liberal positions, rather they are conservative principle seeking to protect what already exists.  Of course there is some progressivism in the Democratic party and Obama is progressive  in some ways yet he is still so elusive when it comes to describing his modus operandi.  Maybe Packer has a point.

I usually have about 20 students in the Community Organizing course I teach each year at Occidental College in Los Angeles. So far, 42 students have registered for next fall's class.

I haven't all of a sudden become a more popular professor. There's clearly something happening on American campuses and in the broader culture that's tapping the pent up idealism of today's students. An important element of that new mood on campus is Barack Obama.

Read more »

Why just complain about paying taxes when you can SING about complaining about paying taxes?!?  Follow the tale of a typical taxpayer who tells the I.R.S. to K.M.A!!

 

See "Goin' to the C.P.A. (The Tax Song)" at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-Groi6Ziio

 

WARNING: DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME.

 

Lyrics: Bruce Hopman Vocals: Ross Hopman

 

SEE MORE PARODIES AT http://parodyandson.blogspot.com

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE GOP Underestimates Conservative America While President Obama is going about his valiant and statesman-like attempt to rescue America and restore our image at home and abroad, the GOP's politics as usual, diehard operatives are acting like spoiled brats determined to undermine the president-and America's-effort. But in their blind attempt to regain power they seem to have forgotten one important fact-the vast majority of true conservatives are fiercely loyal Americans, and don't share their view of power at any cost. While conservatives have a vastly different view from liberals regarding the policies that make America great, the two groups have one very important thing in common-both groups understand that even as we indulge in our sibling rivalry, we are all Americans. America is a family, which means the viability of our nation and proud American traditions must come first. But many of the wingnuts on both the right and the left have long since lost sight of that very fundamental principle. They've allowed what was once a healthy sibling rivalry to escalate into a hatred within the American family that supercedes the viability of America itself. That is unacceptable, and it is exactly that mindset that has led directly to the crises that the nation faces today. In their wisdom, however, the American people decided to put an end to it. That's why we have radicals on the left, calling President Obama a sellout, and reactionaries on the right, calling him a socialist. But the fact is, President Obama is a true mainstream American that the American people have sent to Washington to put an end to this childish bickering. President Obama is neither liberal nor is he a conservative, he's a progressive--and while the terms liberal and progressive are often used interchangeably, there's a big difference. Both liberals and conservatives are people who have, by definition, surrendered their independent thought to the exigencies of political ideology. On the other hand, a progressive is an independent thinker who recognizes that truth and wisdom, more often not, is neither black nor white-it generally resides in the grey. A clear example of that is the liberal tendency to promote the idea that a "progressive tax" is a system where people who make less money should pay a lesser percentage of their income in taxes than people who make more. That's complete nonsense, unjust, and therefore not progressive thinking. A true progressive supports public policies that are fair to all, and recognizes that justice is blind, therefore, caters to neither race, creed, sex, nor social or economic status. True progressives understand that it is just as unjust to discriminate against the privileged as it is the poor. Egalitarian principles dictate that everyone pay the exact same percentage of their income in taxes--that, is progressive taxation. The argument that it won't work because it won't bring in enough revenue, is a meaningless argument to a true progressive, because progressive thinking dictates that convenience has nothing to do with what is just. On the other hand, fiscal conservatives argue that the national doctrine of freedom of expression dictates that corporations should be allowed to send lobbyist to Washington with pockets full of money to lobby and influence congressional legislation. That's also ridiculous. Corporations are not citizens, so a citizen's right to petition government is not an inalienable right required to be extended to corporations. When citizens incorporate a business they are relieved of much of their personal liabilities, therefore, when acting as a corporate entity, they must sacrifice many of the rights that they enjoy as private citizens. Thus, if the nation wouldadhered to common sense in addressing national issues rather than allowing public policy to be dictated by radical wingnuts and special interests, the gains that we would acquire as a direct result would allow everyone to prosper and be treated fairly. If tax payers didn't have to foot the bill every time some corporate big wig took his girlfriend to a power lunch or bought a Mercedes and wrote it off as a business expense, we'd have enough revenue to treat every American taxpayer equally. It would also take a wedge issue off the table that political demagogues use to divide us-after all, many fiscally conservative Republicans are socially progressive, so an evenhanded taxation policy would make them much less apt to align themselves with social bigots. Contrary to what some would have us believe, all conservatives are not self-serving bigots. The election of President Obama makes it clear that many registered Republicans understood that in spite of party and personal interest, President Obama was uniquely qualified to lead this nation at this moment in our history. They didn't see his Black skin as a deficit. On the contrary, they saw Barack Obama's diverse background as an asset, so they set their personal interest and idology aside, put America first. They should be honored for that, instead of dragged through the mud with GOP demagogues. These people understood that Obama's Black skin allowed him to understand what it meant to be Black and poor in America. They also understood that being the product of an immigrant father, he fully understood the challenges and hardships of millions of immigrants across this land. It was clear to these conservatives that after having lived all over the world, and even enjoying the benefits of differing cultures within his own family, that Barack Obama had a unique understanding of the mindset and views held towards America by other people and cultures throughout the world. They also recognized that after being raised and loved by White Americans in the very heartland of this nation, that he also understood the needs, fears, and aspirations of middle American. And finally, they recognized that he's a brilliant intellectual and constitutional scholar, whose knowledge of America and American traditions would dwarf nearly any president in the history of this nation. So in spite of all of the divisive rhetoric served up by the GOP hatemongers, these conservatives said, while I don't entirely agree with his philosophy of governance, I going to support him, because he's right for America at this point in our history. They deserve recognition for that, because unlike the Limbaugh wingnuts, and liberals of every stripe, it was the ideological sacrifice of those conservatives that led directly to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. Therefore, as progressives, let us not make the mistake of gloating in the face of these people, because while liberals and progressives turned out in larger numbers, no group in America has made a greater sacrifice to ensure that Barack Obama is sitting in the White House today. Progressives should also learn from President Obama, and not confuse all conservatives with GOP wingnuts. Listen to the words of Charles, a true conservative, at the link below, and begin to understand that it is not conservatism that is the enemy. Limbaugh told this conservative caller that he was not a Republican, he was one of the stupid people that allowed President Obama to be elected. Limbaugh was right in one respect, the man is not a Republican, at least, as Limbaugh defines Republicanism, but neither is he stupid--he's a loyal, conservative American. I take great pride in coming to the defense of this man. He said that he was a former Marine, and so am I, so it comes naturally. Limbaugh told him that he didn't know diddley squat, but unlike Limbaugh and his kind, Charles does know what it means to come to the defense of America. As a former Marine, I've known such men. He's of the very same breed that left their families and marched off to die, to defeat slavery.   Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com A moderate is one who embraces truth over ideology, and reason over conflict.

It's Good Friday.....

.....do you know where your good friends are?

This is truly amazing.

[S]enator Ted Stevens was the poor sap who made
the unpleasant discovery that if Congress didn't
like the Fed handing trillions of dollars to
banks without any oversight, Congress could
apparently go fuck itself - or so said the
law. When Stevens asked the GAO about what
authority Congress has to monitor the Fed, he
got back a letter citing an obscure statute that
nobody had ever heard of before: the Accounting
and Auditing Act of 1950. The relevant section,
31 USC 714(b), dictated that congressional
audits of the Federal Reserve may not include
"deliberations, decisions and actions on
monetary policy matters." The exemption, as Foss
notes, "basically includes everything."
According to the law, in other words, the Fed
simply cannot be audited by Congress. Or by
anyone else, for that matter....

In January, when Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida
asked Federal Reserve vice chairman Donald Kohn
where all the money went - only $1.2
trillion had vanished by then - Kohn gave
Grayson a classic eye roll ....

Grayson pressed on, demanding to know on what
terms the Fed was lending the money. Presumably
it was buying assets and making loans, but no
one knew how it was pricing those assets -
in other words, no one knew what kind of deal it
was striking on behalf of taxpayers. So when
Grayson asked if the purchased assets were
"marked to market" - a methodology that
assigns a concrete value to assets, based on the
market rate on the day they are traded -
Kohn answered, mysteriously, "The ones that have
market values are marked to market." The
implication was that the Fed was purchasing
derivatives like credit swaps or other
instruments that were basically impossible to
value objectively - paying real money for
God knows what.

"Well, how much of them don't have market
values?" asked Grayson. "How much of them are
worthless?"

"None are worthless," Kohn snapped.

"Then why don't you mark them to market?"
Grayson demanded.

"Well," Kohn sighed, "we are marking the ones to
market that have market values."

An oldie but a goodie, I will confess. But the absolute power
the FED has ..... is not to be believed. I wonder what the
founding fathers would think of this.
"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments
are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the
principle of spending money to be paid by posterity
under the name of funding is but swindling futurity
on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor,
1816. ME 15:23

Not good, that's for sure.

C

Image of NATO via Wikipedia

Like all leaders before him, President Barack Obama has been shaped by those who came before him. Their leadership styles, the controversies that caught up with them, the assessments of how they operated, the alliances to which they were loyal, their capacities to have a global view and take global responsibilities seriously -- all these elements made them either good international leaders or not. This post is an overview of the President's first big trip abroad with the above items in mind. I begin with Madeleine Albright, who helped Obama during his campaign.

American leadership abroad -- Albright to Obama: The Audacity to Hope for Usefulness - Washington Whispers(usnews.com). To quote:

It was a simple message from one author to another. When Madeleine Albright gave President Obama a copy of her book, Memo to the President Elect: How We Can Restore America's Reputation and Leadership , she left him a clever note. "I inscribed it to him, 'With the audacity to hope that this book will be useful,' " Albright said. "Be useful or be read?" kidded Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth, who moderated a conversation with Albright last night at George Washington University. And while the president may not have Albright's tome on his nightstand, some of the first things Obama accomplished as president were very similar to her recommendations, and the recommendations of other foreign policy pros.

Obama the rationalist -- Reflecting on the President's homecoming, John Harris and Eamon Javers at Politico have written an interesting analysis of the Obama thinking style as it emerged during the trip. To quote:

As Barack Obama returns from Europe on Tuesday, he has in bright, bold strokes revealed his signature on the world stage: He is Obama the rationalist.

A diverse set of Obama decisions in recent days have a common theme: a leader who sees himself building a more orderly, humane world by vanquishing outdated thinking and corrupting ideology.

With a rapid series of major announcements and rhetorical gestures, the new president has done more than turn from Bush-era policies. He has shined a vivid light on his philosophical outlook on the world -- and how starkly he differs from his predecessor on basic beliefs about power, diplomacy and even human nature.

"Obama the visionary: end nukes, admit Turkey to the European Union," is how Juan Cole of Informed Comment defines President Obama. Cole said, "Barack Obama continues to shake up the world with his new ideas, demonstrating himself again among the more creative and bold leaders the world has seen in the past half-century." President Obama visited Turkey after attending a celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Matthew M. Johnson of Congressional Quarterly has written a very interesting analysis of the "hazy future of the Atlantic Alliance." Before meeting with NATO and visiting Turkey, President Obama attended the G-20 meeting.

G-20 Meeting in the United Kingdom -- Is the outcome "a new world order, as Gordon Brown termed it?" What its implications for the world's poor? The Washington Note assessed it as "good for the developing world, though the stimulus was not addressed." The Financial Times has a very good in-depth piece that reports on the question, saying that harmony was the main item on the agenda. See also President Obama's interview with the Financial Times, his first with a foreign paper. It was a fine balance for the President to strike.

President Obama comes home to mini religious controversies. There was a bit of talk that some people were miffed because they did not get an invitation to the White House tonight for the first Passover Seder ever to be held there. US News and World Report has all the details about the occasion. The most visible conflict is over his invitation to speak at Notre Dame's commencement exercises. A letter to the editor at US News (4/9/09) calls it an "uproar." President Obama will attend Easter services in Washington , D.C., not necessarily the one he will join permanently, aids say.

President Barack Obama, helped by those before him, has a leadership style that is becoming apparent. Few serious controversies have caught him and the assessments of how he operated have been generally positive. The old alliances are getting to know the new president, with his outstanding capacities to have a global view and take global responsibilities seriously. All these elements could make Barack Obama a good international leaders or not. He will need more good help and some luck along the way.

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics foreign policy europe

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.K. sets bold summit agenda (money.cnn.com)
• Memo From Paris: NATO Struggles With Conflicting Views on Russia (nytimes.com)
  

Have you ever had one of those weeks where everything seems to go wrong ? Well I just had one this week. About a month or two ago(Before I started coming here) it would have put me in a very bad mood.

 But now I've learned a little secret.Thanks to some friends here at TPM I have stayed in a pretty good mood all week (well except for the other day when I ran out of gas) .

  The secret comes in a few parts so here they are.

  1)  If I'm sad and need a good laugh to cheer me up dickday can ussually provide it. Man some of the stuff he comes up with.

  2)If I'm mad at the goverment oleeb ussually has a funny twist on things that could cheer up the most hateful person.

 3)If your lonely or feel depressed there are a lot of people here that can help with that here's a few of my favorites bwakfst, LisB, aunt sam and stillidealistic are the best,

 4) If you want serious discussions theres always larryH, amike and cvilledem.

 5) now if you want to argue well theres everybody. everybody here will argue with you if you need it most in a good way some get a little personel.

  So with all this how could anybody ever stay in a bad mood. There are others out there that I didn't mention and there all good. I personelly don't think I've really read a bad blog here. Some I don't agree with but if everybody had the same beliefs and thoughts things would get pretty boring . Don't you think?

  If I didn't mention you here I'm sorry. I do read a lot of blogs here and can't possibly mention everybody.And the one's I did mention don't always write in the catagory I put them in. So please don't anybody get upset. This is just an example of what I get from TPM.

Hope everybody is having a nice day.

 And remember doing something good for somebody ussually comes back to you in a good way.

 

As students of American history know, in 1932 and 1933, after the election and around the inauguration of FDR, there was a significant portion of the public that wanted a dictator. FDR even toyed with the idea but chose not to do so. At that time Fascism wasn't necessarily frowned upon here. Mussolini was actually well respected, and the Reichstag fire just happened in March 1933 when Hitler took complete control. So they can argue that we need a dictator.   But, let's be consistent. Shred the constitution, if necessary. But they never take me up on it: instead, they pretend to love democracy. You can't have it both ways. My biggest problem, I tell them,  with Bush and his thugs is not that he was moving close to dictatorial power; but that the slobs tried to hide that they were doing so. Just he and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other scumbags took it upon themselves to do what they did. That's why I say they belong in public cages where they can be on display, like a zoo. But, we should be able as a country to have a rational discussion as to the future form of our government.

Maybe we'd be a lot better off if we agreed on a dictatorship.  Freeze the borders, bomb anywhere in the world if they don't give us their raw materials,  lock up the colored peoples in camps, and eat big meals. We can then wash it down with alcohol and really not give a shit. Oh, and only wasps can be on TV commercials and the women can argue over how clean they keep their linoleum floors. Yes, those were the days!  And if I stop in a store, English is always spoken exclusively. An all white world! No more of that 3rd world riff-raff. Bring it on!!

 The problem, as I see it, is that we can't even debate rationally whether we'd be better off with a dictator because they are total liars and won't admit the obvious.  They have a vested interest in pretending that they love democracy...that they're patriotic. No, it has gotten to the point where, if almost any subject is even brought up to them, the right wing quickly reveals itself as being little more than a poorly concealed reservoir of bigotry. For example, let's face it, they favor vouchers rather than pay to improve public education, because they want to "legally" send their children to all white schools. And, even more to the point than that, at all costs don't share the wealth. No problem that for the last 30 years we've witnessed unprecedented growth in income disparity, the rich can never get enough. I could go on and on with examples of their blatant class bigotry but, what's the point? I trust you understand. "Vouchers" is a mere slogan, used by the real elite, like "patriotism", to solicit the prejudice that  is just below the surface of every human being.....and they know it.

 You want to experience receiving a blank look? Try explaining to any one of these slobs that Obama just wants to let expire the Bush tax cut for the rich, his proposal doesn't even come remotely close to what the rich were paying under Eisenhower, Nixon, or Bush Sr. Naturally, they are left speechless because their position is indefensible. They apparently think they have an absolute right to any wealth they have acquired. They will not give up anything without screaming as loudly as they can........Unfortunately, be ready for more and even louder noise.

 And yet, for example, according to the right wing, when welfare was "reformed" over a decade ago, that was reduction of a mere privilege, not a "right". The poor don't have a right to much more than the air, according to the elites,.....they should just be thankful that they live in this country, and be appreciative and obedient, and wave the flag. After all, everything's fine the way it is, no need for this call for "change". Who needs change when you can eat whatever you want, whenever you want it, and wherever you wish? To them (the real elite), the only possible "change" is that they should acquire even more wealth because they "deserve" it. (How has the overwhelming majority agreed to this crap for so long?).

 We have to finally fully admit the truth that it is human nature to always want more. It will never end, so stop waiting for it. The elites understand human nature and use bigotry to their advantage. We (the human race) have to be in a constant struggle to battle our own tendencies, to fight to promote equality. It's true that there will be no such thing as "equality" unless we are engaged in constant struggle to achieve and then maintain it.

 Presumably we know that people are not born equal, we can only hope and aspire to equality of opportunity.  But, it must be kept in mind that at any given time there is only so much "pie" to go around. Therefore, it's also human nature for these Sarah Palin fans, to do what they can to prevent the underclasses from "succeeding". For every little bit of monetary "success" by those without, the elite must surrender something of value. They'll never do it voluntarily, and never without loud screaming. Vouchers, low taxes, wars, patriotism, abortion, etc., are all bigotry-based slogans used to keep those without in line, all to the benefit of the real elite. Certainly, it's time to ignore those distractions and treat them as just that: "distractions", thrown in the way by the elite to try to prevent the masses from focusing on what must truly matter to them: distinctions of wealth.

 And, it would seem to necessarily follow, that although we would achieve much in the way of needed efficiency, if we were to move to a dictatorship, there would be the likely prospect that Mr./Ms. dictator would protect the wealth of the real elite. and bigotry would be even more expanded and out in the open than it now is.  And, almost by definition, the masses would lose whatever access they now have to appeal (question) the decisions that are made, so the overwhelming majority of humans in this country would be worse off. That being the case, dictatorship must be prevented.

 It is no surprising announcement to say that we (the USA) now face an enormously large problem. There is a good chance that in attempting to resolve this problem, we will end up in an ultra-rightist, dictatorship, with even more inequality than is now present. In looking into the foggy future, I can't help but see a USA that is very good for the dwindling few and ever worse for the growing majority. Until what? (because things always do change). It continues to "grow" until it just bursts and I don't want to be around for the explosion. But is it even fair of me to leave such an existence to my children? Probably not.

 Accordingly, we cannot morph into a dictatorship. Instead, we must continue with some sort of lame attempt at democracy until we get it right or, at least, acceptable. And due to a great many reasons, including how well the right is organized and how loud will be the screaming, we have no choice but to mobilize now, and urgently. This should be the existing short-term plan, anyhow. As to the long-term, and disputes of capitalism v. socialism, etc., we at least have several months within which to argue and decide.

 I see this as akin to a life and death struggle: run, work harder, and harder, and "beat" the outnumbered into submission. There is no choice.

 Obama, whatever you may think of him, represents our best hope. If he fails we get at least 4 or 8 more years of idiots and scoundrels, at a time when not only is it highly undesirable but, humanity can simply not afford it. So, we have no choice but to support him in mass. I think he has requested such support. Push him!  We have no choice but to help and now! It may actually surprise us as to how much we can achieve. After all, there really must be some hope.

Man, but I do love the Internets.

With a couple of clicks on a mouse, you can find out just about anything about anything. Sometimes more than you really wanted to know.

So I'm listening to Glenn Beck on the radio one morning earlier this month, just because. And he's prattling on about how Progressives aren't trying to steer the country toward Socialism, what they really want to impose is a Fascism.

(And he defined Fascism as the government's stripping the people of rights and liberties. As if we hadn't just come through the last eight years of that. Where were your bleatings then, Glenn? Hypocrite.)

And when did this effort start? When Woodrow Wilson was president, says Beck (who, by the way, is sounding a bit unhinged.) Read the New York Times during the time Mussolini came into power in Italy (before he "threw in" with Hitler) and you'll see that American Progressives loved Il Duce, Beck says. They loved him. Loved him.

Frankly, I haven't had the time to check that out yet, but I will.

To offer more proof of the Progressive's love and desire for American Fascism, Beck offered this nugget: He noted that the symbol of Italian Fascism was a group of rods, bound together with a battle axe. The rods, he said, symbolized the people collectively brought together, while the battle axe signified the government, hacking away at anyone who got in its way.

Uh huh.

And then, Beck says, a techie on his television show staff said he recognized the symbol as being used somewhere else. Beck said he did, too, and they put their heads together.

Then, the light went on for the techie (whose dad was a coin collector), and he ran over to the computer and brought up an image of the so-called "Mercury Dime."

Son of a gun! What's on the back but the Fascist symbol!! And, Beck says, his voice getting all dark and creepy, when was the Mercury Dime put into circulation???

1916! When Woodrow Wilson was president!!!

Proof that American Progressives have been hell-bent on Fascism since the time of Wilson, according to Beck.

Beck then exhorted his listeners to Google the Mercury Dime and the Fascist symbol to find out for themselves that what he says is true.

See, Glenn, you should have done that yourself, because I did.

First, about the design. The rods Beck noted are called "fasces," a symbol of ancient Roman law.

From Wikipedia:

Believed to date from Etruscan times, the symbolism of the fasces at one level suggested strength through unity. The bundle of rods bound together symbolizes the strength which a single rod lacks. The axe symbolized the state's power and authority. The ribbons binding the rods together symbolized the state's obligation to exercise restraint in the exercising of that power. The highest magistrates would have their lictors unbind the fasces they carried as a warning if approaching the limits of restraint.

So much for Beck's initial assertion. Let's move on.

Beck suggests some nefarious plan behind the design of the often-misnamed Mercury Dime. (It's actually a representation of the face of Miss Liberty, wearing a winged hat to symbolize freedom of thought. It's actual name is the Winged Hat Dime. But don't let details get in the way of a great conspiracy theory, Glenn.)

And what about the fasces on the coin's reverse? Well, contrary to what batshit crazy Beck would have us believe (this is from BellaOnline):

With the United States impending entry into World War I, the main device on the reverse of the Winged Cap Dime was a warning to the enemies of Liberty and Freedom. It is an ancient Roman 'fasces' wrapped in what appears to be an olive branch. It has been call a representation of the iron fist in a velvet glove. The olive branch is a universal symbol of peace. Within the branches is the 'fasces.' The 'fasces' is an executioner's axe surrounded by staffs and bound together with leather thongs. According to ancient Roman law, this is the symbol of power meaning one can be dispatched mercifully with the blade, or beaten without mercy by the staff. The symbolism of the freedom of thought, peace and the power to defend them are characteristic of the American mindset. It is no wonder that this dime became an icon to the American public that carried them through World War I, the Great Depression, and World War II.

An icon to the American public. I guess they all wanted to be Fascists back then, huh Glenn? Even though the Mussolini wasn't even in power when the coin was minted.

And it seems Beck isn't the first nutjob to imply a link between the dime and Fascism. This is from a 2007 article in Numismatic News:

Among the many false rumors spread about U.S. coins over the years was that the appearance of the "fasces," an ancient Roman symbol of authority, on the Mercury dime (1916-1945) was linked to a secret support of fascism in this country. Why? Well, even though the Mercury dime went into circulation prior to the rise of fascism in Italy under Benito Mussolini, by the 1920s, some began to notice that the fasces, which was by then being used as a symbol of fascism, also appeared on the back of the U.S. dime. "Anyone who denounces Mussolini for the adoption of a battle-ax as the symbol of the Fascisti, says Representative Sol Bloomsays, better take a look at our dime," wrote the Chicago Evening Post in 1926. In 1936, a letter sent to the chairman of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures (reproduced in the October 1936 issue of The Numismatist, the monthly publication of the American Numismatic Association), warned that: "The fasces, which is the emblem of Fascism, the present form of government in Italy, strangely enough appears on the reverse of our dime. Although it appears on this coinage as early as 1916, and although it was not adopted by Mussolini and his followers until 1919, future world historians delving into the past through numismatics, as is often the custom, are liable to draw the conclusion that the United States and not Italy was the birthplace of fascism." For the artist's part, Adolph Weinman, whose coinage designs reflected the mood of the nation as it faced the possibility of entry into World War I, the fasces on the dime's reverse were "to symbolize the strength which lies in unity, while the battle-ax stands for preparedness to defend the Union. The branch of olive is symbolical of our love of peace."

You're lazy, Glenn. Lazy and batshit crazy. What a way to live.

Keep the faith.

_________________________________________

Looking for a good read? Try my book, "Savage Lies: The Distortions, Half-Truths and Outright Lies of a Right-Wing Blowhard." The book -- which Savage fans love to hate -- deconstructs the "facts" presented by radio talk show host Michael Savage in his first three books, and is available at Amazon.com.

No, I don't mean asking your neighbor for a cup of sugar... This is about a slice of the politics of debt pie.

In an early blog Borrowing Trouble I discussed negative interest rates.  I haven't had any refutation or clarification of the main question:  Why not let Fed Funds rate go negative?  But this blog is about a side point from back then, the question of types of borrowing.  In that post I pointed out four types, and discussed two of them, Consumer and Producer.  I'm now thinking I must add a fifth type, Financial borrowing. 

The larger problem is that there are four kinds of borrowing: Consumer (credit cards, auto loans, home mortgages) and Producer (corporate bonds) are the two main kinds. And as a mix of these two, there is Government borrowing (muni bonds, Federal debt,...), which isn't really either C or P. There is yet another kind of effective borrowing, Entitlements (Social Security, some Pension plans) in which there isn't any actual principal lent out now but a contractual return is due later.

It seems that Financial Sector debt is quite large.  One recent report put it at $17T.  But I wondered just what debts comprise this sector, which didn't resolve into mere middleman trades leading directly to Consumer or Producer debt.  That is, if Merrill Lynch borrows from BAC to invest directly in IBM, that would be Producer debt with a middleman.  And similarly if a credit card company borrows money to pay off merchants to settle consumer debts, that's grounded in Consumer debt (whether that debt is sound or not).  But Financial debt wouldn't go directly to producers or to consumers.

So, what does Financial Sector debt amount to?  So far, I've come up with it being investors lending money to market players (nominally other investors) to play the markets.  That is, Lehman Bros borrows money from Goldman Sachs and others to form a fund to buy and sell stocks in the open market.  And GS might spend money with AIG to "insure" the Lehman loan against less than idealized performance.  But I don't know if the insurance is considered Financial Sector debt, or is some other deal.  There can be collateral involved, so it looks like a debt.  Either way, we do have a fund playing the market with borrowed money.  And that looks like none of the other kinds of debt I had listed.

Is that simple gambling?  Buying IBM stock from Joe investor, or short-selling to Jane investor, does not provide capital to IBM, a nominal producer.  It simply trades stock from one holder to another.  Joe takes his loss or gain depending on his ownership history.  Now clearly if Lehman doesn't play the markets but uses the borrowed funds to finance an IBM business expansion, that's indirect Producer borrowing again.  But playing the markets is not value investing.

Is this a $17T casino in the Financial Sector, productive only in the sense of churning which generates commissions while eroding investor wealth (and transferring wealth from investor A to investor B, like robbing Peter to pay Paul)?    

What about corporate paper, bonds etc. like GM bonds, is that Financial debt?  Well, isn't that nominally Producer debt (corporations conceived as nominal producers)?  How much of the $17T isn't really Financial Sector debt in this sense?

Finally, how much Financial "market playing" debt is involved in government "bailout" support of "firms", and politically speaking, should ANY of it be allowed to be paid off with government money, regardless of "contracts" which demand so?  And don't take this to imply that the government should rescue GM bond holders either.  I'm simply focussing on one segment of debt here (I think bond holders at GM and at many other "firms" must take severe haircuts).

Thoughts?

Eminent historian Eric Hobsbawm, who has captured the momentous changes of the last century or so in his numerous publications, writing in The (UK) Guardian:

The test of a progressive policy is not private but public, not just rising income and consumption for individuals, but widening the opportunities and what Amartya Sen calls the "capabilities" of all through collective action. But that means, it must mean, public non-profit initiative, even if only in redistributing private accumulation. Public decisions aimed at collective social improvement from which all human lives should gain. That is the basis of progressive policy - not maximising economic growth and personal incomes. Nowhere will this be more important than in tackling the greatest problem facing us this century, the environmental crisis. Whatever ideological logo we choose for it, it will mean a major shift away from the free market and towards public action, a bigger shift than the British government has yet envisaged. And, given the acuteness of the economic crisis, probably a fairly rapid shift. Time is not on our side.

The news of late has tracked the events of Somali "pirates" capturing a "U.S." ship carrying food aid to Kenya. The ship in question is the Maersk Alabama.

Read more »

The Pentagon sponsored a first-of-its-kind war game last month focused not on bullets and bombs but on how hostile nations might seek to cripple the U.S. economy, a scenario made all the more real by the global financial crisis.

The two-day event near Fort Meade, Maryland, had all the earmarks of a regular war game. Participants sat along a V-shaped set of desks beneath an enormous wall of video monitors displaying economic data, according to the accounts of three participants.

"It felt a little bit like 'Dr. Strangelove,'" one person who was at the previously undisclosed exercise told Politico.

But instead of military brass plotting America's defense, it was hedge-fund managers, professors, and executives from at least one investment bank, UBS -- all invited by the Pentagon to play out global scenarios that could shift the balance of power between the world's leading economies.

Their efforts were carefully observed and recorded by uniformed military officers and members of the U.S. intelligence community.

In the end, there was sobering news for the United States -- the savviest economic warrior proved to be China, a growing economic power that strengthened its position the most over the course of the war game.

The United States remained the world's largest economy but significantly degraded its standing in a series of financial skirmishes with Russia, participants said.

Link.

Last week, I was one of the chief directors for SuperNationals IV (which puts the national high school, junior high and elementary chess championships under one roof).  This year's event was held in Nashville, Tennessee.  5300 kids and three days later, I know why Valium was invented...but that's another story for another day.

Between preparing for that event, work, giving my son T-ball and chess lessons, and preparing for my GMAT exam, something had to give.  For now, that thing has been blogging, and the site appears to be much the better for it.

However, I've been wanting to share a story about something I encountered while flying from Atlanta to Nashville.  I sat next to a soldier, in full camo, who was returning home from his second tour of duty in Iraq.  We exchanged pleasantries; I shook his hand and thanked him for his service.  Not wanting to bother him further, I then listened to my iPod for the rest of the flight. 

When I got to the baggage claim area at Nashville International, there was a woman waiting there with her daughter, who couldn't have been any more than seven.  When the soldier got to the claim area, the daughter lit up like a Christmas tree and barreled into him, knocking his duffel bag out of his hand.  Or maybe he dropped it to pick her up.  No matter.

He walked over to the woman, and they kissed.  Then he kissed the girl again.  Then he kissed the wife again.  Then they all stood in a tight circle and hugged each other.  What passed as seconds to me certainly felt like days to them.

I'm sure many of you - especially those readers who have family or close friends in the military - have seen this scene often.  However, it was the first time in my 35 years that I've been sufficiently privileged to watch such a reunion live.  And, as much as I wanted to turn away, I couldn't stop staring and smiling.

Eventually, the daughter turned and noticed me looking at them.  Her face was still wet from crying.  She took a few steps toward me and, in her unmistakable Tennessee accent, said, "Mister, why are you smiling at us?" 

I walked a little closer and said, "You missed your dad, huh?"  She nodded so hard I was afraid she might dislodge her head.

"Are you glad he's home?"  Another 9.8-Richter nod was my reply.

"Well, I'm glad he's home too.  And I'm grateful for his work.  That's why I'm smiling." 

The soldier scooped her up, walked over with his wife and little girl, and thanked me for what I'd said to his daughter.  I apologized for being so ill-mannered as to intrude in their happy reunion, wished them all the very best, and started to walk back to my staked-out spot at the baggage carousel.

The girl pulled her face out of her dad's shoulder and said, "Mister!"

When I turned, she said, "Sometimes, it's OK to butt in."  For the first time since my high school girlfriend asked me out, I was rendered speechless.  I just walked away with a giant smile plastered on my face.

War has its human costs.  We hear about them on the nightly news, and read about them in places such as these.  And the people who raise the many spectres of that cost are completely correct to do so.  For me, though, it was so good to see one of our servicemen be rewarded with something that I have come to take for granted - the joy of coming home after doing a difficult job under trying circumstances. 

For once, the human cost exacted from those who wait for their heroes to come back to them was repaid.  I still feel blessed and utterly humbled to have borne witness to that repayment.

I don't know how to evaluate this quantitatively, but reducing trade deficits is a good if minor thing domestically, it means we're shipping less wealth overseas.  Roubini says in email:

U.S. Trade Deficit Continues to Shrink on Plunging Imports

That puts less pressure on the dollar and is part of what economists such as Krugman have pointed out as part of a recovery.   Whether it's more than a silver lining I don't know.  If economic recovery can proceed without reversing this trend, I'd think that would be good in terms of keeping wealth in the USA.

It's not that I'm against redistributing wealth in general, but big trade and budget deficits are said to be problematic in the long run.

Over on a social network of which I am a member there was an exchange that is emblematic of where we are as a society today.  We have lost the ability to hear what each other is saying because of the hyper-partisanship.  With all the stereotyping done by each side, we have removed any individuality from our convesations to such an extent we can no longer converse.  I make my own stereotypes, Zom-Bushes are my favorites.  I not pure in any sense, but I hope I have not gone this far.  Let me share the exchange.

{Disclaimer:  Obviously this is but a segment of the exchange.  I have not spoken to the posters to get their agreement to share this, but I think it speaks volumes about my point.  These were responses to a statement ridiculing the Republicans for suggesting tax cuts as the cure to everything.}

The IMF was on the verge of irrelevance just a few months ago, running out of resources as well as raison d'etre, and downsizing.  Now its resources have been tripled and it has been given key responsibilities in halting the slide of the world economy into depression.

My newest Project Syndicate column argues that there is much to like in the "new" IMF under Dominique Strauss-Kahn's leadership.  But the IMF will need organizational changes (in addition to developing countries getting greater voting power) if it is to become an institution that we can all love:

Read more »

Well if you believe it is, then I have a bridge and some prime Florida real estate
you maybe real interested in as well.


Update:

Well....maybe not.


C

Look.  I don't really care what these homos Republicans do in the privacy of their own homes.  It's their business.  But if they start doing it in public, then I'm going to have to explain to my kids that homos Republicans like to have sex teabag other homos Republicans, and it's going to make me feel really uncomfortable.  So please, can't we just keep all the gay stuff teabagging behind closed doors?

I enjoy it when I agree whole heartedly with a beast such as rush. I get my biggest response when I play with a known fascists own language.  Most of the time I not only quote word for word, I even provide the proper context for the statement I am analyzing. The beasts would not agree with my self assessment but I am pretty comfortable with it.

My own writing is self taught. Pretty sloppy at times. I get lazy in my editing. And I lose some information when I cut and paste from WordPerfect to the blog. But WordPerfect has been my writing instrument for twenty years. I can work on something for a couple hours, sometimes twice that long and then I am just to excited after I have the info on the blog site. So I push submit when I should work on it another hour.

But I really enjoy it when I read a 'perfect' piece. Or even a perfect paragraph. That is why I started my somewhat egotistical award presentations. I love singing the praises of the bloggers at my own site.  Which is why it is my site anyway.

Poems, essays, studies and even reference blogs. Any one of them may contain a gem that can and will not be ignored if I have my say about it. Even some rants. Curt or Quinn or Oleeb sometimes start of flow that really should never be taken apart. It is almost as if three or five pages have been written in one breath.

But, ever so often, a professional from the dark side just hits it out of the park. Writing, message and form. And it is fun to present it here.  I would not cut and paste the entire piece, of course. Out of respect and because no one would read it.

I came across such a piece today at The Daily Beast by Conservative radio host John Batchelor. It is so well written that I can give away the conclusion first, in his own words:

We few Republicans with long memories wander around the cemetery admiring the tombstones and enjoying the rain. I can hear you doubting that this could truly be the end. The final stage of grief is acceptance.

I have never seen this sentiment so beautifully put by a Dem or so-called independent thinker. Wandering around a cemetery in the rain. You ever do that?  I have.  For at least five thousand years, urban homo sapiens has created dead zones. We somehow need them.  Oh, cremation has always been an option and we may build great monuments in remembrance of our dead.

But there is nothing like a cemetery, to evoke those emotions. Remembrances of things past.
    
"GOP is a mummy-wrapped skeleton sitting in its own chilly mausoleum of bilious resentments and creepy sentimentality."

See the good metaphor. Alliterative s's. The juxtaposition of resentments to sentimentality. This writing does not grow on trees.

Our radio host begins with the election of FDR.  See, I may have been born seventeen years after Roosevelt took office; five years after his death; but I listened to repubs damn his legacy as a tot. And it never stopped. George Will today still damns FDR.  As a smear campaign against Hoover. 76 years after the event. George Will repeats the garbage spewed for 76 years.  Batchelor is not full of hyperbole here. No, no, no.  And he tells us that this is one reason his party is dead, dead, dead.

From Herbert Hoover to Robert Taft, from the Bush clan to the ridiculous Tom DeLay, not one note of grace, not a convincing moment of understanding that the Republican Party is about honest liberty for honest, laboring people--not about Wall Street, the tax code, chasing Reds, or bullying the lonely.

If this is what a conservative thinks of his party, Jesus (blesses himself).  Not a convincing moment.  Honest liberty for honest, laboring people. Come on lefties. We have to learn to write like this.  

Batchelor goes on to deny that Ike ever gave a whit for his party, and that that was why he did such a fine job as a president who appeared to play golf all day while he initiated and completed a splendid highway system, protected social security and attempted to keep an eye on the pentagon.

Nixon was really a liberal who just hated the 'Eastern Liberal Establishment'.  I am skipping a discussion of Reagan here out of pure disrespect.

And the 'revolution of 1994' where Scarborough and Newt saved the country from welfare queens driving over white people in cadillacs on the government dime?   

What about 1994? Georgia's Newt Gingrich (born Newton McPherson in Pennsylvania to teenaged parents whose father immediately scrammed) was a gifted opportunist and compulsive gabber who asserted before the 1994 election that "Clinton Democrats" were "the enemy of normal Americans." Gingrich made other heated claims that left no Yankee Republican in doubt that this was a man who dreamed to be either Jeff Davis or his butler. The Gingrich-led takeover of the House, matched by the cranky Bob Dole's suzerainty in the lifeless Senate, can now be regarded not as a Republican comeback but as a transitional blip in which the baby boomers and Gen Xers established a new leadership of the Democratic Party.

As Speaker of the House, Gingrich wasted four years talking aimlessly about "normal Americans." Then, after he failed against Bill Clinton with the silly ploy of using Monica Lewinsky and her Inspector Javert, Ken Starr, Gingrich fled to Fox TV to ramble harmlessly about "moral tone" and his enemies, "the very small counterculture elite." Gingrich's talking points have attracted imitators over the last decade, chiefly the Gingrich mini-me Karl Rove and Rove's carny creation of George W. Bush.

This is as good as any lefty I have read.  I mean 'Gingrich min-me Karl Rove'.  I really cannot relay my indignation over the fact that I did not come up with that description of turd blossom.
Or Newt as a gifted opportunist and compulsive gabber.  Come on, this is good stuff.

So, evidently our radio host has little love for w.

There is much to explicate about Rove and Bush in the White House--their fearful temperament, their petty theories of governance, their inability to shoot straight so that, at firing at the lunatic bin Laden, they hit the cretin Saddam Hussein.

The cretin Saddam Hussein.  The gang that could not shoot straight.
Jesus I love this stuff. (Blesses himself)

I have already cut and pasted too much. But I will end with a direct quote anyway.

What about the Republican Party right now? Isn't it on radio and TV claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility and American power? Bypassing the stupidity of these claims, I am on radio, on what is called right-wing radio, and it is easy for me to see that my loudest colleagues, who compulsively repeat the cant of Conservatism for Dummies, are not sincere students of the Republican Party but rather barkers, hookers, establishmentarian jesters, cultists, and, in the worst instance, just thatch-headed whiners

 

Hi, folks. Since it's a pretty big week for at least two of the world's major religions, I thought it would be nice if we could sit down and have this little chat.

You may not know it, but we're already acquainted. We're... tight, even.

I'm God.

Read more »

Obama and the Media
by Ron Powell

The media is handling the Obama Presidency like a child with a new toy on Christmas morning. They will play with it until they wear it out or break it. We would be hard put to remember a time when so much attention has been paid to the smallest details of a new president's administration. This observation includes the love affair that we had with JFK's administration and family. Would we be hearing and seeing so much detail and analysis if McCain had won the election? Perhaps the media should be reminded that Barack Obama will still be the first African American President four years from now and, even if he is just mildly successful, will most likely become the first 2-term African American President.....

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

 

Obama the Poker Player
by Ron Powell

President Obama was a regular in the low stakes games that he and members of the Illinois State legislature engaged in during ling sessions. He brought some of the tendencies he displayed around the card table to his presidential campaign. They are certain to be evident and analyzed through the course of his presidency.

By the accounts of his poker buddies, Democrats and Republicans, lawmakers and even the lobbyists, Obama is careful and focused. He's not easily distracted and doesn't give away his intentions unless it's to his advantage. He's not prone to taking risky chances, preferring to play it safe. He's is seriously competitive. They say that when he plays, he plays to win.

His friends say that Obama would study the odds carefully. If he had strong cards, he'd play. If he didn't, he would fold rather than bet good money on the chance the right card would show up when he needed it. That reputation meant that he often succeeded when he decided to bluff.

Some of the participants in the games described Obama as a careful player who manages risk and has excellent control regarding behaviors that could give away the strength of his hand. He is what poker players might describe as a "Rock". Republican players often teased him about being his being a conservative only when assessing the strength of his opponents in the game and the relative strength of his bankroll.

President Obama hasn't played poker since he left Springfield to become the junior senator from Illinois. He didn't join a Washington version of his weekly poker game and he didn't play while running for the presidency. But, those of us who know the game, know that if Obama was as good as they say he was, even though he has left the game, the game hasn't left him.

We know that the game of poker is as much a part of who Barack Obama is, as his game on the basketball court. It is in this regard that President Obama would do well to think back on the days of playing poker in the back rooms of the Illinois legislative building and remember that: He who holds the best cards at the beginning of a hand doesn't always win the pot.

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

 

A woman awakes during the night to find that her husband is not in bed. She puts on her robe and goes downstairs to look for him. She finds him sitting at the kitchen table with a cup of coffee in front of him. He appears to be in deep thought, just staring at the wall. She watches as he wipes a tear from his eye and takes a sip of his coffee. "What's the matter, dear?", she whispers as she steps into the room, "Why are you down here at this time of night?"

The husband looks up from his coffee." Do you remember 20 years ago when we were dating, and you were only 16?", he asks solemnly.

"Yes I do," she replies.

The husband pauses. The words are not coming easily. "Do you remember when your father caught us in the back seat of my car?"

"Yes, I remember," says the wife, lowering herself into a chair beside him.

The husband continues: "Do you remember when he shoved the shotgun in my face and said, either you marry my daughter, or I'll send you to jail for 20 years?"

"I remember that too," she replies softly.

He wipes another tear from his cheek and says, "I would have gotten out today."

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

Anything But Ordinary
by Ron Powell

The following is an e-mail that I had occasion to send to then candidate Barack Obama, when I received a communication from his campaign which asked "ordinary people" to participate in certain events and make contributions in support of the Obama candidacy:

Dear Mr. Obama,

I am anything but ordinary......Please find another way to refer to those of us who are not fortunate enough to be multimillion dollar celebs who are currently in the glare of the spotlights at the center of the American political stage. In many respects you are where you are because 'ordinary' people, like me, made commitments and sacrifices before you were born or came of age, in order that this moment in history might have the chance to unfold as it is.

You are the benefactor of the efforts of 'ordinary' people like myself, who, despite the personal costs, kept the faith and worked diligently to bring down the barriers that have, until now, kept us from having the opportunity to achieve precisely what you have achieved. I and the rest of us 'ordinary' people have a way to go yet before we can rest knowing that our legacy is you, your candidacy and your presidency.

Please instruct your writers, or surrogates to refrain from using language which can be construed as condescending or elitist. You and your candidacy are the product of extraordinary efforts on the part of extraordinary people.

I know you can do better than to refer to us in such an off-handed, cavalier fashion. I know you can do better, because I am convinced that you know better.

If there is anything I can do to assist you and your campaign, professionally, please feel free to call on me at any time, and do so in the knowledge that should you ask me to participate in the process, you will be acquiring the services of someone who is anything but 'ordinary'.

Regards,
Ron Powell

If you like what you've read here, visit my blog, The Modern Times Post.

* Sorry for the pretentious headline.

So we had a bit of a dust-up in a Jonathan Taplin thread this week that, after an interjection by MJ Rosenberg, wound up spanning two of Taplin's threads.

Taplin's initial point was that Obama enjoys deservedly strong report from Democrats, independents and even a lot of Republicans.  Quibble with the president over the details, says Taplin, but at least recognize that even people who disagree with the guy have faith in his abilities.  And also, stop calling Taplin "Obama's Butt Boy" because it seems to irk him.

MJ chimed in to defend Obama's tactical approach to changing the system (radicals accomplish nothing, says MJ, Obama is in the mold of a smarter progressive like King) and he also pointed out, based on his own experiences in the civil rights movement, that a lot of Obama's critics or, as he calls them "the indifferent to Obama" crowd don't understand cultural  signifigance of Obama's presidency.

But it all gets down to who gets to call themselves a liberal, progressive or whatever.  Taplin claims he's more progressive than his critics.  Rosenberg just doesn't have much use for what he calls a "radical left" and then, somehow it all devolved into a discussion about angry Hillary Clinton supporters who won't get on the train and are out to sabotage the president (a charge lobbed at everyone from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman to TPM poster dijamo).

I think we need to examine who Obama's critics are, why they are actually allies of the president and why some charges lobbed at Obama's critics are just stupid.

Charge One: Obama's critics are angry Hillary Supporters.  Evidence: Paul Krugman supported Hillary and criticized Obama during the primaries.  The primary arguments at TPKMCafe were rather... erm... heated. Why This Makes No Sense: Hillary's not even mad at Obama.  She works for him! Besides, the policy differences between Clinton and Obama were never that dramatic.  You don't see a lot of people arguing that President Hillary would have dealth differently with Wall St because it's a silly argument: Larry Summers would still be involved and we all know that.

Besides, Hillary's millions turned out in droves for Obama in November.  What more do they have to prove?

Charge Two: Obama's critics are radical leftists. Evidence: They want a fuller, faster withdrawal from Iraq, they don't want to increase our military presence in Afghanistan, they think the stimulus package should have been focused on Main St. and not Wall St. they want universal healthcare as a priority despite the recession, want the Pentagon budget axed and they want Obama's Department of Justice to stop using Bush era legal tactics and the "state secrets" doctrine to stop civil libertarians from using the courts to uncover the secrets behind the domestic surveillance programs.

Uh... do people here really look at those priorities and say "Helplessly radical?"  I might buy that some of that is unattainable but some of Obama's will -- he could direct the justice department to stop making "state secrets" arguments in court, he just doesn't want to or doesn't think that's the right approach. But that doesn't make his critics radical.  It just means they disagree with the president.

Charge Three: Obama's critics are impatient. Evidence: It's not even 4 months yet! I have a lot of sympathy for this but I think it's fair for Obama's critics to warn the rest of you that 4 months is a short time for the president but a rather long-time given that we're headed into midterm elections in 2010. If we come out of the recession the Democrats could add to their majorities in the next cycle but that's no guaranty right now.  If we lose our majority or one of the houses, these first four months will look, in retrospect, more crucial than they might seem now.

Charge Four: Obama's critics want Obama to fail. We're better than that.  The only person who wants Obama to fail is eating hot dogs and Oxycontins right now.

Charge Five: Obama's critics are uncompromising idealists who don't realize that politics is the art of the possible and are willing to sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect.  Come on, it's just people voicing their opinions on the Internet. But there's a real danger in this line of thinking: what if some of people around here who like to talk about "the possible" are underestimating what is actually possible?

As MJ says, this is a historic presidency.  There's a poetry to it that makes it especially important, poignant and, in the long run, effective. So lets dream big and lets speak up. Maybe Obama's critics are just pointing out that more is possible than some of you think.

Maybe, we really are all on the same side.

My God!  We really have no way to make our own spin, do we?  How pathetic are we that we sat idly by as the MSM made a BIG STINK out of how Michelle Obama touched the queen. 

Egad!!!  Touched her you say?!?  That is totally inappropriate!!!

We just sat there and ate that all up, didn't we?  Was that reporter right, race is still an issue? Was she supposed to be wearing gloves so her skin did not contact anyone?  Why are we simply referring to her as Michelle anyway?  This was a regal event and the moment beffited royalty!  It was quite noble, IMHO.

If I was to write something about that moment, I might say this, "Queen Embraces First Lady!"  Celebrate this moment!  Royalty seldom reaches out to anyone but the First Lady of the United States was granted a royal hug.  The royal embrace was bestowed upon her.  There is no precedent whatsoever for this kind of intimacy with the Royal Family, unless you are remembering Diana.  This was a unique moment that no previous First Lady has ever achieved, receiving the royal arm around her torso as far as Her Majesty could reach! 

We sit here talking about what Michelle did like it was an assault, like the Queen was somehow victimized.  The Queen reached out to Michelle, whether it was initiated by one woman or the other, they shared a tender moment as two human beings enjoying the company of each other.  Michelle touched the Queen!!!  STFU, already.  We had achieved peace in our time and now that moment has been ruined.  Who are these people creating scandal out of intimacy and why DO we listen to them?

I feel dirty.

And also, somehow, proud of Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox. Tonight on Rachel's show, the found the Holy Grail of double entendre. I wonder if Glenn Beck gets it.

Well, here I am tonight, trying to party.....and doing a bang-up job of it, if I may say so meself....

But someone whispered in my ear that my poetry speaks volumes, and that knocked my socks off.  I have always considered my poetry to be rather dark and depressing, based on feedback from family and friends throughout the years, but recently I've been told that it's pretty good.

So, thus encouraged, I'd like to post a poem that I wrote a few years ago, about the touchy subject of abuse.  Depressing as it is, abuse does exist.  I am a lucky survivor -- so many women, children, and even men, are not.

Whatever any of you get out of this poem,  I just want to say that I'm grateful to get it out of my system, and into your heads.

Thank you for reading my stuff, if you care to:

Sorry

Walking in the door
Entering her home
Eyes darting 'round
She wants to be alone

Putting down her bags
Stepping 'round with care
Moving through the rooms
Hoping he's not there

And he's not there
And she's not sorry
But she feels sorry
She's always sorry

Heart is beating hard
Later when he comes
He wants to make love
She just wants to run

Sheltering her pain
Hiding all her fear
But how she wants to cringe
Whenever he is near

Cuz he hit her
And he's sorry
He says he's sorry
He's always sorry

Yeah he hit her
And he's sorry
He says he's sorry
He's always sorry

What makes you think just because she loves you
You can do this?
What makes you think that she'll stay and keep
Suffering through this?

So she left him
He is so sorry
He says he's sorry
Forever sorry

Yeah she left him
And she's not sorry
She is not sorry
She's never sorry

I just found out this morning that my sister and brother-in-law had to put down their Siberian Husky named Casey last night.  I was there the first day Casey became part of our family when she was a puppy.  She was crazy as a loon, happy-go-lucky and spoiled bitch, who never failed to bring the love and the smiles...she was an important member of our very close immediate family, who will be sorely missed, and who always couldn't wait to see her 'Uncle John'.

If there is a doggy heaven I hope she is getting all the tummy rubs and Frosty Paws she could ever want...

:( :( :( :(

It seems I'm specializing in non-political blogs lately...  TPM has a feature called 'most followed users', and through some quirk I actually made it onto the list of top 20 most followed users recently.  The feature itself seems a bit contrived IMO.  Most readers, commentators, and posters here, know, or have an opinion, who has something of value to say, sans such an obvious yardstick as, 'most followed'.  Most of us, ('most followed' or not), have screwed the pooch somewhere along the line when we demonstrated some stunning lack of insight, and most of the commentators with no followers to speak of, have written literary/intellectual gems in the form of comments or posts at some time or another.   I know the most followed poster at TPM has decried this crude measure of the 'worthiness' of TPM posters as well, (hey Thera, que pasa?).  But that's not what I'm writing about today. 

The handwriting has been on the wall for some time now, as I watched Lux Umbra Dei's position on the 'most followed' feature drop.  Shortly after my username appeared on the board, his username dropped to the position just above mine.  Today, Lux, one of my first 'friends' here at this blog, slipped below me in the 'most followed' list.  I didn't surpass his popularity because I am more erudite, or funny, or interesting.  It only happened through attrition.  I'm fairly certain that his position at or near the top of this list would have been assured were he still posting here.  You see, my friend, (and I know he was many of yours as well), simply 'disappeared' on or about Dec. 20, 2008.  Ominously, he mentioned in his last comment on the site that he had recently blacked out, and anticipated posting less frequently after the holidays.  So, we who knew Lux Umbra Dei/Mr. Beebers here in our virtual community, were left with a big hole... a gap in our understanding of what ever became of one of our most valued contributors.  It's the nature, I suppose, of such virtual communities as ours, that we are left without closure, when one of our mates disappears.  I find myself thinking, in this case at least, that Lux, may just be taking a sabbatical, a break in the action, and will return when and if his distinct spiritual proclivities dictate that he do so.  I hope that's the case, but in the end I may never know.  Most of us have no real knowledge, who the others here at TPM are.  Most of us value our anonymity, and there are distinct advantages to that, esp. when the trolls come calling, or when we're applying for jobs with companies whose corporate philosophies may be at odds with the intellectual constructs we present here.  ;-)  The price we pay for our anonymity, is that lack of knowledge and if need be, closure, when one of us goes missing.  So, I guess what this post is about, for me at least, is to say, "Lux... if you're out there, know that you are missed", and if he is not there, I send my thanks to the world, the universe, to life, that I knew you to the extent one can know anyone here in cyberworld.  You are/were one of the best it has been my pleasure to have known in this, my first, and only online community.  I wish I had known you better.  In this sentiment, I know I'm not alone. 

If anyone else is reading my words here, who hasn't had the pleasure of 'meeting' Lux, I highly recommend you follow the link above, and introduce yourself to him and his writings.  It will not be a wasted effort. 

I sing the body electric, these are not the parts and poems of the Body only, but of the Soul.   Lux is/was of a higher voltage.  

CQ Politics (April 8, 2009): Swanner's case has just been left to die quietly, without notice, a former CIA official involved in the matter observed, on condition of anonymity because it remains classified. 

Reached on Tuesday, Swanner's lawyer Nina Ginsberg said she was not free to discuss any aspects of the case, except to say she had heard nothing further from the Justice Department about prosecuting him. link 

Let's hope this case does not become part of the DOJ pattern of covering up the tracks of individuals suspected of committing crimes during the Bush years.

TPM covers state secrets debacle.

Today, I got a nice letter from the people at the plastic card with the magnetic stripe company. Translating it into everyday language it read something like this:

Dear Valued Credit Card Customer:

We're writing to let you know about some changes we are making to your credit card account. Effective immediately, we at "The From Sea To Shining Sea Large Checking, Saving, Loaning and Mortgaging Institution" are going to raise your Annual Percentage Rate. We are going to raise it even if you are a valued customer, which of course you are, otherwise we wouldn't be writing to you. We are going to raise it even though you don't carry a balance, pay your card in full and use your card often enough that we don't have exorbitant service charges on an idle card. We're raising it because, as a good credit risk, you deserve it. We are committed to giving you what you deserve and you deserve to pay us more.

You have the right to reject this increase. We'll tell you how that works later. But first, please know that we are going to tie your monthly interest rate to the prime rate so your interest rate might change on a dime because of prime rate fluctuations.

We're going to use the prime rate published in the Wall Street Journal. If the Wall Street Journal doesn't publish the prime rate, we're going to use the prime rate from any other index we choose. And, if we don't like the rate those other indexes announce, we'll just make up one of our own.

Now, we said you have the right to reject this rate increase. If you reject the increase, you have to pay your balance off and never use your card again. If you use your card, we can increase your rate even though you informed us in a timely and appropriate manner that you rejected the rate increase. If you don't use your card, we reserve the right to cancel your card for inactivity.

Okay, so there you have it. We're raising your interest rate to whatever rate suits our fancy any time we want to increase it. You can either take it, or leave it. If you leave it, we'll charge you for leaving. And if you leave it, you will no longer be a valued customer and we will tell all of our friends that we made you a generous offer and you refused, and they should never make you any offers of any kind ever again.

So, there you have it. You remain a valued customer as long as we can charge you whatever we want and you pay it immediately and without questions. We remain your credit card company until we decide that we don't want to be your card company any more. We'll let you know.

Thank you for being a customer of "the Super Financial Institution That Serves the Contiguous United States and Alaska and Hawaii."

Have a wonderful day.

 

I especially loved the part about the prime rate published (or not) in the Wall Street Journal and deciding whether or not they want to use that index or make up their own. And, the "you have the right to reject this increase" clause. Classic.  

 

Come help celebrate a hard earned long weekend, if you gots one, or even if you don't. We have kidnapped the Easter Bunny.

The Pakistani and Afghan ambassadors both wondered aloud whether Obama's aid for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban was enough to defeat it and alleviate the poverty that sustains these extremist ideologies in the region:

Pakistani ambassador Husain Haqqani welcomed the new Obama strategy, but contrasted the aid given to nations on the frontline of the war against terror with the multi-billion-dollar bailouts given to US companies in distress.

"The resources that are being committed may look big to some but very frankly, I think that a company on the verge of failure is quite clearly able to get a bigger bailout than a nation that is accused of failure," he said.

"Why does Afghanistan or Pakistan get less resources allocated to solving a bigger problem ... than say for example some failed insurance company or some car company whose real achievement is that they couldn't make cars that they could sell?"

...Afghan ambassador Said Jawad, speaking alongside Haqqani at a forum organized by Washington's Atlantic Council think-tank, also said Obama's new strategy marked a welcome reorganization of US goals.

But he stressed that Afghanistan needed more help for a major expansion of its security forces, from the 134,000 army troops and 82,000 police personnel foreseen in the Obama plan.

To counter the resurgent Taliban, the Afghan army should number at least 250,000 and the police 150,000, the envoy said.

"Right now you are paying with your blood and treasure in Afghanistan by sending your sons to fight for us," Jawad said.

"The most sustainable way (to defeat extremism) is to create this capacity in us," he said, insisting Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government was already tackling the endemic police corruption identified by foreign donors.

We've got to do it the right way, or we are not going to get this situation solved in any reasonable amount of time.... and time is not on our side.

By Erin Ferns

The rising levels of voter participation among the nation's youth continue to be challenged by the current voter registration system, perpetuating the difficulty of fostering lifelong voters. Some states are proposing to take this challenge into their own hands by making voter registration accessible to citizens as young as 16. Already widely accessible at schools and departments of motor vehicles, the move would allow future voters in some states to automatically be enrolled on the voter rolls on their 18th birthdays, a change that advocates say could "close the registry gap between young voters and the rest of the population." 

Read more »

The November 2008 election saw dramatic increases in participation by traditionally underrepresented groups, including Americans of color and young voters, according to a new research memorandum released by Project Vote yesterday.

Read more »

The other day when I mentioned god in one of my blogs one of the comments was about not believing in god well the person that made the comment has been a friend of mine here since I started coming. And it upset me a little bit that other bloggers were fighting in an unfriendly way with her so I thought I'd write this one for everyone. People who believe in god and those that don't.

There are somethings out there that a lot of people believe in and there are things out there that few believe in but today I'm hoping that my list of things to believe in will become everybodies. It's a simple list so here it goes.

   1} I believe that everybody should be able to state their beliefs without being jumped on about them.

   2}I believe everybody should talk to each other the way they want people to talk to them. Yes we need argueing but lets not get so personel about it and try to be friendly.Remember the person commenting has just as many rights to talk as you do.

  3I believe everybody should believe in there selves. Thats a new one for me. I have two very wonderful friends here that are trying to teach me to believe in myself and its starting to work.and I thank them very much for it.

  4}this one is the biggy. I believe EVERYBODY should try there hardest to help everybody they meet. If everybody did that we wouldn't have goverment bailouts we wouldn't have so much crime and most of all we would all feel better. Now I don't mean keep helping the same person over and over again. Thats counterproductive and isn't what I had in mind.

I hope everybody is having a wonderful day. It's in the 70's here again and sunny. 

There has been a lively discussion on TPM about the "purity myth," a white, middle class notion of female virginhood that excludes poor women and women of color for whom it is (allegedly) unattainable.  I have to question the premises of the discussion.  That double standards continue to exist in terms of expectations of men and women's sexuality is a given.  I think that goes without saying.  The schema of virgin/whore remains pervasive in American society.  However, I do not see the point of impugning the intelligence or agency of young men and women who choose not to have sex, suggesting that they have fallen prey to an oppressive, bourgeois ideology if they value the idea of chastity.  Some young people, especially girls, undoubtedly feel the pressure to conform to an ideal of virginity, despite their own desires and conflicting social messages that encourage sexual activity.  At the same time, though, we need to keep in mind that some young people choose not to have sex -- not because they are being coerced by bourgeois hegemony, but because they have religious convictions that value chastity before marriage.  Or simply because they choose not to be sexually active.  

Is this so hard to acknowledge?  I feel like much of the debate on TPM has implied that women are either repressed virgins, captive to an unjust bourgeois ideal of sexuality, or they have a healthy, liberal attitude toward sexuality.  At worst, this dichotomy seems to substitue a new orthodoxy of sexual liberalism in place of the old straightjacket of conservative sexual moralism.  At best, it seems to miss the fact that there are other cultural impulses and social factors -- other than class and gender -- in play when people contemplate their own sexuality.

I only entered this debate because the basic premise that a "purity myth" was "middle class."  This surprised me.  When I was in high school, in a small southern town during the 1990s, the "True Love Waits" movement was quite popular.  Both boys and girls got the rings and pledged that they would "wait until marriage."  Undoubtedly, many of those people ended up breaking their pledges, sexual desire being what it is.  In any case, many of my classmates who believed in this idea of chastity were not what I would call "well-off" or "middle class."  They were of many races and income levels, and sincere in their Christian faith; many believed that their sexual experience would be more valuable if they postponed exploring it.  That's an individual call to make, and most people will not come to the same conclusion, but I don't think that those who do are necessarily subscribing to an oppressive image of their self-worth as sexual beings.  Let's keep this discussion of purity and virginity and sexuality going, so that the harmful and unjust aspects of our cultural expectations of sex can be addressed.  But let's also respect people in the choices they make, when they are motivated in ways we might not always immediately understand or appreciate. 

"Fair and balanced?" "Blatant sedition?"  We report.  You decide.

Media Matters for America has a revealing look into the scam and sham that Fox calls News; REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests:

Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," in recent weeks, Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has often described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Specifically, Fox News has in dozens of instances provided attendance and organizing information for future protests, such as protest dates, locations and website URLs. Fox News websites have also posted information and publicity material for protests. Fox News hosts have repeatedly encouraged viewers to join them at several April 15 protests that they are attending and covering; during the April 6 edition of Glenn Beck, on-screen text characterized these events as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. Fox News has also aired numerous interviews with protest organizers. Moreover, Fox News contributors are listed as "Tea Party Sponsor[s]" on TaxDayTeaParty.com. Media Matters for America has compiled the following analysis of Fox News' promotion of the tea-party protests.

Fox News personalities appear to have the journalistic integrity of Pravda during the Soviet period.

Greta Van "Her Husband Used To Be A Democrat But Now Advises Sarah Palin" Susteren, "People are protesting President Obama's massive $787 billion stimulus bill, his $3.55 trillion budget and a federal government that has been ballooning by the day since the president took office."

(How's this for a historical fact: "Van Susteren's father, Urban Van Susteren, was a longtime friend of Joseph McCarthy, having studied law alongside him and served as his campaign strategist in his successful 1946 U.S. Senate campaign to unseat three-term incumbent Robert LaFollette, Jr. During his Senate career, McCarthy lived in the Van Susterens' Appleton home when he was not in Washington.") - Wikipedia

Bill "We'll Do It Live Pass The Luffa" O'Reilly, "big government spending protests are taking place all over the country. The latest in Cincinnati where about 5,000 folks showed up, showed their displeasure with the Obama's administration money strategy."

Andrea "Former Communications Director For Jeanine Pirro Against New York Senator Hillary Clinton" Tantaros, "People are fighting against Barack Obama's radical shift to turn us into Europe."

Glenn "I Only Cry When I'm Happy" Beck, "Celebrate with Fox News by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News." (While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties.")

Of course Fox is careful to maintain their obligatory .0006 degrees of journalistic separation:

TaxDayTeaParty.com lists Fox News contributors Michelle Malkin and Tammy Bruce as "Tea Party Sponsors." The sponsors section also lists American Solutions for Winning the Future, whose general chairman is Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich. Gingrich filmed a video "invitation" to attend the April 15 protests. According to TaxDayTeaParty.com, "Gingrich will be a featured speaker" at the April 15 protest in New York City.

On one "News" program, Bill "Was He Fired From CNN?" Hemmer interviewed one, Lloyd Marcus, president of the, National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color, who wrote a song for the protests.

Marcus said that he previously "was on a 40-city 'Stop Obama' tour" and later said of the Orlando, Florida, protest: "[P]eople were not negative about Obama the man, they were negative about his policies, what this man is trying to do -- have all this government overreach. That's what people were really concerned about."

During the interview, on-screen text directed viewers to protest websites.

After the Marcus' interview concluded, co-host Megyn Kelly said: "Great guest."

The Media Matters piece goes into copious details as to Fox So-Called News transgressions that are guaranteed to keep any conspiracy fearing Progressive up all night.

The dictionary defines sedition as; an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government.  I'm not enough of a constitutional or any kind of scholar or lawyer to pass judgment, but it sure walks, has feathers, and quacks like a duck, Fox is not "News" to me.

I leave you with the inspiring words to the Marcus' song which is posted on FoxNews.com:

    Mr. President!
    Your stimulus is sure to bust.
    It's just a socialistic scheme,
    The only thing it will do
    Is kill the American Dream.

    You wanna take from achievers
    Somehow you think that's fair.
    And redistribute to those folks
    Who won't get out of their easy chair.

    We're havin' a tea party across this land.
    If you love this country,
    Come on and join our band.
    We're standin' up for freedom and liberty,
    'Cause patriots have shown us freedom ain't free.

    So when they call you a racist cause you disagree,
    It's just another of their dirty tricks to silence you and me.

The song later added: "We gotta vote out these clowns who don't love the USA."

"We gotta vote out these clowns who don't love the USA."  America, what a country.

Sittin' downtown in a railway station
Don't you just know I waitin' for the train that goes home sweet Mary
Hopin' that the train is on time
Sittin' downtown in a railway station
One toke over the line

Murry says, "Smoke that, Megyn Kelly..."

One Toke Over The Lne - Brewer And Shipley

The other day we saw clips of Rush Limbaugh talking with a caller.  Rush appeared to defend torture by saying nobody was killed.  While there is no logic in that defense, it now appears the defense is also likely false in fact:

[Manadel al-Jamadi, an Iraqi who was picked up by U.S. Navy SEALS in Baghdad and interrogated by the CIA] died in the care of Mark Swanner, a 44-year-old CIA interrogator who battered the prisoner at the ghastly Abu Ghraib in 2003. 
[... ]
"The Final Autopsy Report listed the cause of Mr. AL-JAMADI's death as blunt force injuries of the torso complicated by compromised respiration, and the manner of Mr. Al-JAMADI's death as homicide."

This story had been effectively buried, according the the blog article. 

Maybe it's time to drive it to the front page of the MSM.


Related TPM thread, by astral66

Our favorite snaggle-toothed radio blowhard has been heard lately repeating  that he's not looking at President and Michelle Obama through a race-based prism. He wants us to believe, you see, that he is color blind.

This from a man who often rants about how the "heterosexual caucasian Christian male" is an endangered species; the same man who has played "Dixie" on his radio program, calling it a "patriotic song."

And, as I have written elsewhere, the same man who in 2000 copyrighted the lyrics to a song he wrote in 1978 called ... "White Man."

Here's the record:

White man.

Type of Work:	Music
Registration Number / Date:	PAu002539088 / 2000-08-01
Title:	White man.
Description:	1 p.
Notes:	Song lyrics.
Copyright Claimant:	Michael A. Weiner, 1942- (Michael Savage, pseud.)
Date of Creation:	1987
Names:	Weiner, Michael A., 1942-
	Savage, Michael, pseud.

That's as far as I can go. Because the work was never published, it can't be released without the written permission of the author. I have called in my other blog, Truthtopowermedia.com, for Savage to email me that permission (I know he reads it because he references things in it now and then), but he has not done so.

In the alternative, I have been told that I can send the copyright office $150 and they will look it up for me, call me when it's ready for viewing and let me come to Washington, D.C. and look at it. Not sure if I can take notes or not. Regardless, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Anyway, I'd love to get a look at the lyrics. Can't you just imagine what they are?

Whatever the content, I believe they'd lay to rest Savage's claims that he's not biased.

Keep the faith.

_________________________________________

Looking for a good read? Try my book, "Savage Lies: The Distortions, Half-Truths and Outright Lies of a Right-Wing Blowhard." The book deconstructs the "facts" presented by Michael Savage in his first three books, and is available at Amazon.com.

In his latest blistering salvo against DOJ's legal brief filings, Glenn Greenwald makes a number of very potent and alarming charges against the Obama DOJ that unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) don't stand up well under closer scrutiny.

As a former constitutional attorney and occasional contributing writer for libertarian think-tank, the Cato Institute, you might expect Greenwald to really know his stuff when it comes to matters of constitutional law.

But it's hard to see how one can interpret some of Greenwald's more strident recent attacks on the administration's legal positions as not being either ill-informed or deliberately misleading.

Alleging that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush policy of "expanding" states secret powers and even claiming new powers for itself, Greenwald writes (emphasis mine):

"...beyond even the outrageously broad 'state secrets' privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity..."

In similarly breathless tones, he writes at another point that, with its latest legal filing, the Obama administration has created "a brand new 'sovereign immunity' claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration."

Let's unpack and inspect each of these alarming claims in turn:

Claim 1: The Bush Administration Dramatically Expanded the Scope of State Secrets Powers and the New DOJ Is Carrying these Expanded Powers Forward

The first part of this claim isn't a claim about the Obama administration at all, but nevertheless, it provides a crucial underpinning of Greenwald's broader greivances.

Only, as Gertrude Stein once famously remarked, "There's no there there."

We who criticized the Bush administration may be correct in saying Bush grossly abused his state secrets powers, but granting that fact, it's not at all clear that Bush actually expanded the scope of these powers.

Greenwald frequently asserts that, through previous legal precedent, state secrets powers allowed the executive to block specific pieces of evidence from the courts, but that the executive before Bush never had the power to dismiss whole cases or to prevent non-privileged evidence from undergoing judicial review.

But there are two previous legal precedents that, when taken together, show that both in principle and in practice, the executive already held this power long before Bush.

The first of these precedents is the one that originally established "state secrets" powers in the US, the Supreme Court decision in the case of US v. Reynolds. This decision explicitly granted the executive branch the authority to invoke state secrets privileges in its own discretion, without the privileged evidence being subject to any form of judicial review or further legal challenge.

In other words, the decision gave the executive branch and only the executive branch the power to say what is or isn't a privileged state secret.

Like it or not, this precedent alone effectively gives the executive branch the power to dismiss any civil lawsuit it can reasonably claim touches on national security issues. All the government has to do to shut down any such trial from this point forward is to declare whatever evidence is entered into consideration off limits under state secrets powers.

Technically, such a case could still be brought before the courts, but since the government has the authority to declare any evidence even potentially entered into consideration as privileged, it can ultimately force the case to be thrown out of the courts on the basis that it has no legal standing.

But that's not the only precedent that undermines Greenwald's assertions on state secrets: In 1992, a federal appeals court decision ruled that the courts can't even allow a trial to proceed if doing so might touch on evidence protected under state secrets powers.

The court ruled that a previous court's decision to dismiss a state secrets related case had to stand without the appeals court even taking any new evidence, whether it was declared privileged or not, into consideration--in fact, the court ruled that it couldn't even examine the new evidence, because the application of the state secrets privilege didn't permit it:

This time the plaintiffs file over 2,500 pages of unclassified documentary evidence supporting their claims that the contractors were negligent in their design and implementation of the weapons systems aboard the Stark. The appeals court finds that regardless of the amount of evidence entered, to allow the trial would be to potentially infringe on the US government's "state secrets" privilege (see March 9, 1953). "[N]o amount of effort could safeguard the privileged information," the court rules.

So previous precedent held that the executive could declare any particular piece of evidence it wanted off limits, and the 1992 federal appeals court decision ruled that even allowing a trial that might bump up against state secrets privileged evidence to proceed posed an unacceptable risk to national security.

Putting these two rulings together, the legal precedent for the government to throw out any case it likes under state secrets privileges was already established even before Clinton took office. In using states secret powers to block public scrutiny of his torture and wiretapping programs, Bush didn't actually claim new legal authority for himself, as Greenwald argues. He just grossly abused legal authority that he already had.

Claim 2: The Obama Administration Has Created "a Brand New 'Sovereign Immunity' Claim of Breathtaking Scope"

This part of Greenwald's argument is a little bewildering to see coming from someone with a legal background. 

The United States federal government, like every government in history, has always been understood to enjoy the protections of sovereign immunity--meaning, the federal government can't be sued unless it consents to being sued.

This isn't a new claim of "breathtaking scope": it's been the law of the land from the beginning of the US legal system, with exceptions only in a few narrow circumstances defined in statute under which the federal government has waived its sovereign immunity to a limited extent.

Though his motives are likely much purer, Greenwald writes about "sovereign immunity" as credulously as right-wing pundits wrote about "habeas corpus," acting as if it were some novel, controversial legal theory rather than a bedrock principle of the US legal system.   

* * * *

In offering these responses to Greenwald, it's not my intent to dismiss his arguments all together, just to set the record straight on a few of his more sensational and pointed recent criticisms. I have no doubt that Greenwald's commitment to government accountability and the defense of civil liberties are genuine and that his contributions in these areas are valuable.

I also have no doubt that his recent attacks on President Obama's DOJ are meant to shed light into dark places--places that could definitely stand to see more light.

But unfortunately, I think he's misinterpreting the administration's actions and motives in certain fundamental ways, looking for instantly-gratifying, short term outcomes for problems that require more carefully measured approaches to stand any chance of achieving substantive long-term change.

Sensationalizing every legal brief filing that comes along as if each one is the final nail in the coffin of democracy isn't helping to foster the kind of calm, level-headed approach to policy-making we need right now.

And among the many lessons the Bush years should have taught us, isn't one that the executive branch doesn't always have to claim new powers to make itself more powerful? If left unchallenged, it can usually achieve the same effect simply by abusing powers it already has.

Huffingtonpost.com  is starting to be questionable. They have been posting lots of false, misleading, anti-Obama, hysteria driving headlines, I am concerned...it's like Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and Drudge are posting all the headlines and articles! Anyone else notice?

Talking Points and Daily Kos keep up the good work!!!

UPDATE 4.10.09

I agree with everyone that Obama and his administration need to be held accountable but I also think they deserve fair criticism not misleading headlines that are off base. 

 

And yes, there are a ton of right wing trolls posting outlandish comments on huffingtonpost.

Barack Obama has assumed the Presidency at a critical juncture when the economy is on a downward spiral due to mediocre policies of previous Administations as the visiccitudes of international factors. Most Americans, except Rush Limbaugh and his Republican disciples---want President Obama to fail. The majority of the Americans, knowing the stakes are so high, have closed ranks in support of the President. But his recent trip abroad, while it has yielded much dividend in terms of public relations on a universal level, some of the things he did while abroad did not register a positive note with some political observers here at home. His bow to the King of Saudi Arabia, for instance, is incompartible with the office of the President. The President also said things he would have been better off not having said. For example, when asked about the exceptionalism of America, he should have been unapologetically affirmative as to the authenticity of American exceptionalism without appearing to be pandering to other nations by authenticizing their own brands of exceptionalism. Moreover, his pronouncement of America as not a Christian country is the height of Presidential imprudence on his part. While that assertion in and of itself was as accurate as it could be on constitutional grounds, Obama's pronouncement itself in this regard smacks of religious particularism and denominational factionalism an American president ought to always stay above. Injecting himself into such a polarizing religious issue diminishes his Presidential status and raises questions as to his own religious orientation even as it unnecessarily tends to confirm pre-existing suspicions about his religious affiliation. All these are extraneous and uncalled for self-inflicted controversies that at the very moment he does not need to gulvanize Americans around efforts to stop the bleeding of the economy and enhance its growth for the goof of all.

One of the biggest problems with our political discourse today is the sheer volume of lies, distortions and hysterical projection in play. One of the obvious patterns is that the left, in general, engages in fact-based argument, using critical thinking skills, and the right, in general, doesn't.

For eight years, during the Bush presidency, the left argued against his actual policies, criticized his actual actions, proved his policies were bad, ineffectual, sometimes dangerous and usually counterproductive. Time and time again, we marshaled facts, concrete data, and real evidence to support our criticism.

Today, the right engages in hysterical, paranoid flights of criticism, regarding things that Obama has never said, never done, and never will do. The right, in general, never, ever uses facts and evidence to support its batshit crazy claims.

That is not good for America.

For instance, Hannity, Limbaugh, Bachmann, Beck and company have been railing for months now about Obama's supposed desire to create a socialist state. Nothing in Obama's past, nothing in anything he's ever proposed, and nothing that he has done to date even remotely would support such a contention. Obama is a moderate -- at times, even a centrist -- establishment Dem. His economic policies are in no way radical. In fact, many progressives, including yours truly, are disappointed that he hasn't done far more to reverse the right wing slide of the last three decades. While his speeches sound many of the right, progressive notes, his actions have not always coincided. In short, the reality of his presidency is that Obama is no enemy to conservatives in any meaningful way. Would that he were.

Wingnuts have been riling up their nutcase base about Obama's supposed desire to confiscate guns. That has resulted in several recent shootings and the deaths of three Pittsburg police. There is no plan, anywhere, not even a remote whisper of a plan, to confiscate weapons. It flat out doesn't exist. But that hasn't stopped delusional wingnuts from pushing this meme and endangering all of us in the process.

Wingnuts are also pushing the meme that Obama plans to take America off the dollar. Again, that is a figment of their swamp-fever imaginations. There is not even the slightest hint of a remote possibility that Obama would do this. There is not even the slightest hint that he has ever proposed considering it. But that hasn't stopped the fact-free right from pushing the meme.

Wingnuts are up in arms about an Obama nominee, Harold Koh, slandering him and lying about him with a vengeance. Wingnut, serial liar, Rick Santorum, wrote an op-ed article accusing him of things without the slightest attempt to support the accusations. Such as, Koh's supposed desire to allow Sharia law to overtake American law. There is no such desire on Koh's part. It doesn't exist. But that doesn't stop Santorum from lying about it to rile up the wingnut base. In that op-ed Santorum also makes unfounded accusations about Obama's supposed anti-American views:

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans - helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions. His nomination of former Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh to be the State Department's top lawyer constitutes further evidence of his disdain for American values.

This, of course, is a typical right-wing smear. And, illogical to the extreme. It's also self-evidently, almost hilariously hypocritical. Apparently, to wingnut liars, mere criticism of American history is a sign of antipathy toward America. We had to deal with that in spades during the Bush presidency. Apparently, we're supposed to just shut up and clap louder, and not use our brains. The hypocrisy, of course, comes about when wingnuts rail against the current president, even to the point of fomenting rebellion, and don't see that as exhibiting "antipathy to American values."

 Our media tends to like to split the difference, and work to push false equivalences. As in, both sides do it. Both sides are just as partisan. Both sides tell falsehoods in equal measure. Sorry, but that's yet another lie. Objective people, viewing our crazed political moment, could not possibly agree with that. While in the past the left may have been guilty at times of avoiding facts, evidence and critical thinking skills, for the last few decades, it has been solid in supporting its contentions. The right has never been known for caring much about facts and evidence, but the last thirty years have seen it tumble into the ridiculous, the absurd, the hysterical and the paranoid on an altogether new level. America suffers as a result.

Yesterday Media Matter for America released a well-researched report showing that conservatives have repeatedly resorted to blaming ACORN in place of substantive discussions of causes and solutions, even where the organization has little or nothing to do with the issue.

For us at ACORN, the findings in this report come as no surprise. Since the 2008 election, when ACORN became the focus of a coordinated series of attacks from partisan operatives seeking to derail then-candidate Obama's presidential campaign, we've become something of a beast of mythic proportions, casting magic spells, mesmerizing elected officials and the traditional media, all the while destroying the fabric of democracy one strand at a time.

Specifically we've been accused of everything from causing the global financial meltdown to getting billions in Federal payouts to voter fraud to manipulation of the US Census. As I said back in January, this is all just a big bag of overheated partisan fever dreams. Media Matters took the time to cut through the right-wing bamboozlement chorus with some cold hard facts. Here are a couple of examples from the report.

Read more »

The Republicans have turned themselves into ankle-biters, not even genuine critics.  They bark a lot but when push comes to shove the best they can do is tug impotently on a sock.

I had the idea that I would list a number of recent examples, but not only are most readers probably well aware of them, my brain just isn't up to it today.  Feel free to comment with your favorite examples.  Here's a current one:

An increase in Defense spending is a "the sky is falling" cut because some projects are being cut to make way for increased spending elsewhere. 

As someone who has some ideals aligned with Kucinich, I'm disappointed that Gates' proposal does not reflect a more progressive agenda.  Maybe Congress can effect some real net cuts without leaving us too open to political (or military or terrorist) attacks, which Obama will sign even over protests from DOD contractors.  I see most of the DOD budget as "protection" in the vile sense of mob rule and the rackets.  I'd be happy to tighten my virtual frugal belt 5% if the economy needs to shrink 5% to accommodate saner practices and more sustainable future lifestyles.

Image via Wikipedia

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Torture Report (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Former Gitmo Guard Recalls Abuse, Climate of Fear (abcnews.go.com)
• Spain To Consider Torture-Related Charges Against Bush Administration Officials (crooksandliars.com)

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/12/william-gibson-on-ns.html

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002651.html

http://www.foucault.info/documents/disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html

I want to give credit to Oleeb, who wrote a thought-provoking post about the Obama DOJ legal push for total immunity from public prosecution. There is the very real and continuing threat against all of us from the danger of unrestricted spying.

I have included these three links to relatively old articles (ancient for the internet) because they very much pertain to not only the political problem facing us, but the social problem that is far deeper. The problem is surveillance. Surveillance as entertainment, surveillance as punishment, surveillance as defense, and surveillance as offense. The crux of the problem is that total surveillance is inevitable (if not in fact already here) and that for every legal inroad we may make in order to protect our privacy from the court of law, there is corruption in the court of public opinion that is certainly as damning.

The other problem is that we are doing this to ourselves.

There is no polite way to put the truth. The combination of an imperial government and advancing technology have made total surveillance a fact of life. Nearly all of us have a digital camera and phone in our pockets at any time which can record details and publish them. We willingly publish personal information on public forums, especially social networking sites. Most businesses can cross pollinate your personal information in order to maintain a client record. What politicians said two years ago can be rebroadcast on a web site in order to catch them in a lie. The fact that there are so many benefits to surveillance is the reason why its rapid infiltration into our daily lives has been so thorough.

William Gibson makes a point that most of us have believed in total surveillance as a comforting fact for decades. The common theme in surveillance is that the government is listening to us anyhow. the other theme is that government is protecting its citizens from evil people OUT THERE, and unless you have something to hide, you shouldn't demand your privacy. But what blows my mind is that we the people have taken the tools of surveillance and applied them to one another and then given the telecommunications industry a blank check to handle this treasury of information. And we wonder why governmnet has colluded with the telcoms in order to get their preferred piece of pie.

First comes out enemies. We track suspected terrorists throughout the world, monitor any and all communication, and keep the dragnet perpetually fishing. We accept this because this keeps us safe. Surveillance allows us to live our lives in peace and not be troubled with the nigglesome details of WHY exactly these terrorists are trying so damned hard to attack us.

Next we apply the rules of surveillance to public figures. Politicians must watch what they say and do because joe and jane citizen can air their lies for all to see. Police officers must curtail their violence or risk being exposed. Celebrities mustn't flash their naughty bits, drive with their kids inappropriately secured, or heaven forbid walk into a speciality clinic. No one complains because they are kept in check and tongues can wag in delighted gossip.

Then we apply the rules of surveillance to one another. Photos we save in our phone can be used against a spouse in court. If someone disagrees with you online, you can google their info and publish it on your blog. Everything you have written online can be used against you in order to promote ridicule or rejection.

Then, maybe, we can begin to see the fruits of total surveillance. Desires fulfilled, justice dispensed, fear delivered, and control achieved. We are now engaged in the correction and discpline of one another every day. We are all prisoners and guards at the same time. Citizen and Spy.

So, when the Obama administration, and other administrations before him, continue to up the ante on powers of surveillance, please realize that it is a trend that begins and ends with Joe and Jane sixpack. Our government is a reflection of ourselves. Our desires, our fears, and our wisdom or foolishness. For every rational fear that the government is unaccountable, realize that citizens can be equally unaccountable, because everything we say and do is becoming public record.

By choice.

Ahhh. Leave it to Beaver. Make fun of that show if you will, but I learned valuable lessons watching that show as a tot. I recently caught a classic lesson the other day.

Beaver and Larry Mondello (The most 'ethnic' the fifties could get was to include a poor waif of Italian 'extraction', his mom was in fact a dumpy old broad but we never saw his father who was portrayed as some fellow who supposed beat Larry from time to time. You could get the idea that Mr. Mondello was doing three to five on some weapons violation, but how did Mrs. Mondello maintain a house in suburbia, HUH? Oh and most probably, the Mondellos were members of that secret sect known as the Roman Catholic Church.) were the best of friends.

One spring day, (it was always late spring or early summer in those days) the two were innocently bouncing a ball down the street discussing the problems of inflation, when they passed a 'basement apartment'. Now if one ever lived in suburbia in those days, they might object because there are no basement apartments in suburbia. At least no open to the 'street'. A locked rot iron gate kept the public from the entrance to this strange residence.

Well, the gods or fate or just bad luck sent the ball over the gate. This was an omen that something evil would occur. At any moment.

There was the ball sitting innocently at the entrance to a facility that should not exist in the first place. And there were Larry and the Beav peering through the fence. Oh my God (blesses himself) what were the two waifs to do? I mean for all intents and purposes they had lost their ball forever.

Well, Larry lacked initiative. Like all Italians I would guess even though everyone knew they controlled Vegas and the Teamsters.  So the Beav came up with a plan. He would squeeze somehow through this cast iron fence and retrieve the prize. And no one who ever know and all would be well.

So as we all remember, the Beav had a rather large cranial capacity, shall we say, for his body shape, as it were. And of course, as we might have predicted, Beaver got his fat head stuck between two of the iron bars.  Larry tried to separate the bars as did the Beav and the situation only got worse and worse.  Until it was clear that the sun was setting soon.

Now the setting sun was an important omen to Larry Mondello. I mean, after the sun set his father, the Italian, turned into a werewolf and Larry would be beaten within one inch of his life if he was not home before Dad got home.  And probably eaten or tortured or worse.

So Beaver is starting to weep and Larry is starting to cry. And Larry explains that if he does not get home soon, he would be beaten to one inch of his life. And so, out of the blue so to speak Larry says to  Beaver:

SEE YA LATER BEAV!!!!

 And as our unbrave Larry proceeds home to save his own Italian skin so to speak, he begins to sing:

You only hurt, the one you love
The one you should never hurt at all.

Now when Larry gets home, Mrs. Mondello says something like, 'How was your day?''

And Larry had another opportunity to save his friend. And he decided to save his own skin once again because it was apparent that if you would have said something like:

Well Ma, me and the Beave kind of f.....ed up and he got his head stuck in a rot iron fence and we need to contact the authorities in order to see if we can save him from a fate worth than death.

BUT NOOOOOOOO. What does this cowardly Italian say. Its all OK Ma. And leaves it at that.

Well, you can imagine the alarm that arrives at the door of the Cleavers that night. I mean Father comes home and "....where is the Beaver?"

Oh my goodness, he is not here replies June.

And soon they have a powow and June thinks, I am sure the Beaver was with that Italian Larry guy recently. Let us approach Larry's Parents, even though we know they are ethnic because we must brave the elements-and I mean all the elements-in order to ascertain what happened to the Beaver.

Well, you can imagine, they arrive at the ethnic homestead and the frumpy Mrs. Mondello appears because the wolfman evidently has not returned that evening and answers the door.

Well, there is an intense discussion and Larry is called from his room, (which probably is unkempt and disgusting and under intense interrogation, Larry gives it up so to speak.

The Beaver has his head stuck in a rot iron fence and may have been eaten by wild dogs and I am so sorry that I did not alert the authorities and that is because my Italian father is a werewolf and would have beaten me within an inch of my life.

Well, in 1950's language, Ward says something like who gives a shit about you? And they proceed to gather up Larry and make them find out where the Beaver is.

And thank god for the Fire Department (Blesses himself) and Beaver is saved.

THE END.

Boy, I tell you, at age eight, I was relieved. Everything was going to be ok.

How can I apply the lessons that I learned from that 1950's reality show? Well let me tell you I can apply them in a number of ways.

1. Mitchell

Dicky Nixon and Mitchell were the best of friends and they were not even ethic. As a matter of fact they both despised ethnic peoples.

And dicky and mitchell used to play all the time together. And one day, dicky and mitchell were bouncing a ball down the street and it fell into a basement apartment known as watergate.

And, you guessed it, Mitchell got his head stuck in the rot iron fence and dicky began crying and mitchell began crying and they both thought everything would be ok. And it was not the case.

And so after hours and days and weeks, dicky said:

SEE YA LATER BEAV.


2. Bernie Madoff

Now what our Bernie did was very terrible indeed. People like Elie Weisel who wanted to right the wrongs of the evil Nazis was a good friend of Bernie.  And Elie and Bernie were kind of walking down the street one fine Spring Day and Elie said:

You know Bernie.  I have millions of dollars coming in to find old Nazis that used to torture people, you know like Cheney, and I need to find a fund to invest all this money so that we can continue to go after the people that Pat Buchanan thinks are good people.

Well, Bernie says, Beave... er....Elie...give me the monies and I will work to invest those monies and you shall be able to destroy all the old Nazis, make things right, and really piss off Pat Buchanan.

Now, this is what really happened. Bernie who was kind of ethnic also but remember so was Elie but not Pat, was not really good at this investment kind of stuff.  So Bernie kind of took in a lot of money I mean more money that Mrs. Mondello or even Ward could ever dream of.  And Bernie kind of had a wife who needed at least ten mill a year just to keep things going because she refused to rent underground apartments even when they are located in suburbia, and so Bernie kind of spent a lot of money.

Anyway, Elie  kind of got his head stuck in a rot iron gate and Bernie wanted to help Elie but he knew that he would someday be discovered and so Bernie kept giving his family money and quit giving Elie any 'return on his investment'.

And finally at some point, Bernie looked at Elie and said:

See ya later Beav.


3.  Libby

Now one day dicky c. met his friend Libby and said, hey libby, work for me and we shall control the country and defense spending and all sorts of fun things.  And Libby said, hey that sounds like fun dicky.

And so dicky and libby were having all this fun. They were cheating the budget people out of hundreds of billions of dollars and giving all these monies to their best of friends. I mean they were bouncing all sorts of balls down the street all year long and then one day, one of the balls found itself in a basement apartment.

And libby got his head caught in the grate trying to retrieve the ball. And libby began crying and dicky began snarling (dicky was not very good at crying) and dicky said,

SEE YA LATER BEAV.

And libby stayed stuck in the fence until the feds came by and picked him up and threatended to send him to the clink and take away his license to bounce balls anymore.

And they all sang:

You only hurt the one you love
The one, you should not hurt at all

THE END

Originally posted at Bold Faith Type.

Today marks the end of the 30-day comment period on President Obama's proposal to rescind the "conscience clause" implemented in the final days of the Bush presidency. There's been a lot of misinformation about what Obama's proposal means, particularly when it comes to conscience protections for abortion. Some groups have falsely alleged that rescinding the "conscience clause" will force doctors to perform abortions against their will. In fact, current underlying laws protect such providers, and these conscience protections will remain in place. Rescinding the "conscience clause," which was implemented by the outgoing Bush administration on January 20, 2009, simply returns conscience protections to the way they were less than three months ago -- the same way they were under President Bush for eight years and prior.

While some religious groups do oppose the rescission, many support it because of their concern that it is overly broad and vague and could be harmful to health care and counter-productive to efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies and, in turn, the number of abortions:

Read more »

Obama said to America on Thursday that right now is a good time to refinancing. 30-year morgages have fallen to 4.78 percent- a record low. He also urged people to use government website at www.makinghomeaffordable.gov, and beaare of con artists.

From The Daily Kos's priceless morning humor column Cheers and Jeers, authored by the inimitable Bill in Portland Maine:

Oh! More Things I Know:

...

It seems odd that members of the Republican netroots, who act like they're the badassest badasses on the planet, would get so excited about organizing little tea parties. (Pinkies up, girls!)

When I stage my tax revolt against the government it's gonna be a fuckin' whiskey rebellion!

Laughed my ass off, right here at the kitchen table!

I left this information in a comment to Brian Beutler's story yesterday, but considering the legs under the Obama defense budget story, culminating with Jon Stewart's magnificent send-up, I thought it worth rehashing.

During the Iowa caucuses, all the presidential candidates were courted by a grasroots group working to raise awareness about waste in the defense budget.

Obama produced a video for this group, which you can watch on YouTube (the embedding function has been disabled).

In the video from October 2007, Obama pledges to reduce missile defense, nuclear weapons, space weaponization, and Future Combat Systems.  In short, he promised to do exactly what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates outlined this week.

Obama took this stance during the campaign at great political risk, and he was quite predictably attacked by John McCain and the right wing media.  What made the attacks especially egregious was that they went beyond attacking what Obama actually said and distorted his position on Future Combat Systems (written with capital letters to signal a specific Army program) to suggest that Obama was against future combat systems (lower case to suggest Obama was some anti-military radical).  Worse still, Future Combat Systems, or FCS, was a program that John McCain himself opposed as part of his anti-pork zealotry.  Yes, there was a time when McCain fought against real wasteful spending and not bear DNA and San Francisco marsh mice.

What does this story tell us about Obama?

As I said yesterday, I think it tells us that Obama is one of those politicians who takes his campaign promises seriously, and he's not afraid of a fight.  By empowering Bob Gates to make these military reforms, Obama was inviting a fierce and dishonest attack from a multi-billion-dollar defense industry with powerful allies in Congress.  These reforms are modest and common-sense in scale, but they are revolutionary in their political scope.

This is something to keep in mind as some our political allies are flailing about this week at the thought that Obama is betraying his people over other issues, such as the banking plan or civil liberties.

Take a step back and see the policies play out.

UPDATE:
This is why I love TPM.  Their crews are on the beat, monitoring the cable news to find this gem from Rep. Sestak of Pennsylvania.  Also note that Joe Scarborough (R-Blowhard), opens the segment talking about the military "cuts" to the growing defense budget.

by Nezua, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Last Friday, 13 people were killed at the American Civic Association in Binghamton, New York. The event shocked the nation and was "the worst mass shooting in the United States since the 2007 massacre at the Virginia Tech college," as New America Media reports. Because the violence erupted at an immigrant service center, the immigrant community has been especially affected, and immigration opponents are predictably using the tragedy to justify, or at least voice, their vitriol toward the undocumented population.

The impact of the Binghamton shootings on the U.S. immigrant community, already aggravated by ICE raids that funnel them into an abusive system, evokes multiple concerns. One is of further violence. But a grim possibility has also emerged: Immigrant activists who want to become integrated members of U.S. society might stop patronizing the places that can help them do just that, as Public News Service reports. Facilities like the American Civic Association provide many services for the immigrant community, one of which is improving their English. It's hard enough for those with a limited grasp on a new language to navigate life in a new country. If immigrants fear the places that help them learn, it only makes their lives harder.

When issues like immigration become politicized, nothing is off-limits. Even the national census is "morphing from sociological project into a political one," according to RaceWire's Michelle Chen. Conservatives fear losing votes and political power to regions where "illegals" are counted as a part of the census (As if they didn't lose the Latino vote all on their own in 2008). Civil rights and immigrant advocates fear a worse miscount this year of the Latino population than 2000's 3 per cent under count.

Erin Rosa reports on possible census-count solutions for the Colorado Independent. Rosa writes of "Ya es hora! Hagase contar!" (It's time! Make yourself count!), an "unprecedented media campaign" that encourages Latinos to participate in the census.

The Colorado Independent has a few interesting articles on immigration this week. In Bush Admin's Environment Waivers Remain Intact at Border, a contrast is drawn between President Obama's recent speech in Germany about walls "between races and tribes" being "the walls we must tear down" with the controversial construction of a border wall in southern stated. Construction proceeds, despite President Obama's professed philosophy. And in Senate kills immigrant in-state tuition bill, Wendy Norris writes about Colorado's legislative "companion to the federal DREAM Act" that would have provided college tuition equity to undocumented Colorado high school graduates was lost on a 18-16 vote." One Democrat explained her vote against the bill as a practical one: Because children of immigrants are at risk for deportation, the bill is "at odds" with federal law.

This type of legislative deadlock doesn't escape Ezra Klein of the American Prospect, who comments on Senator John Mccain's "testy" rejoinder to a number of Hispanic business leaders who questioned when reform would come. "Where the reformers will turn," Klein asks. In 1986, a particular alignment of politicians enabled the last major reforms in immigration law to pass--a configuration of forces not currently in place.

So, who will reform immigration? It's an important question. The terrain is dangerous because there is no clear consensus or policy to rely on. In the legal gaps that this absence creates, questionable legislative bridges spring up, like agreement 287(g), which enlists local law in enforcing federal immigration violations. The most famous symbol of 287(g) is, of course, Sheriff Arpaio, who has left an entire community "terrified and afraid to call the police."

"We're dealing with a climate of hate, people don't understand they're being moved by people who hate," says Phoenix attorney Danny Ortega. "Then you've got the Joe Arpaio's of the world making it politically popular to hate."

The power that can be leveraged by law and political agenda is vast and must be closely monitored. Immigrants, especially women of these communities, have long been a target of such iniquities. National Radio Project reports on yet another instance in a long line of oppressive reproductive health policies that target women of color and the immigrant community.

Going back to RaceWire, Michelle Chen follows up on President Obama's Aunt Zeituni's fight for citizenship, and how anti-immigrant groups have fixed upon her case as a high-profile example of how immigrants "game the system." The article outlines precisely how ludicrous this stance is.

Finally, make sure to check out In These Times' thoughtful review of the new "immigration/baseball drama" Sugar, by Brooklyn-based filmmakers Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden. Reviewer Brandon Harris writes that "Sugar's experiences reveal the labors of all immigrants who struggle to adjust to the harsh realities of American life on the margins."

That phrase could apply to many today. And to many who paved the way for us today. It is a story we must not forget.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about immigration.

Visit Immigration.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy and health issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Healthcare.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

I don't have any problem with people protesting the status quo. I serve as an agent provocateur myself here at Brown Man Thinking Hard, so the idea of the taxpayer "Tea Parties" that will be held next week on April 15th is the kind of thing that would initially appeal to me. I can even see some merit in the reasoning behind some of their issues with the Obama administration, even after allowing for the highly partisan slant of their platform.

The thing I don't like about it is the kind of people it has attracted. They are the same insufferable types as the dissatisfied Democrats who formed P.U.M.A. after Hillary Clinton lost her mojo late last spring when it became clear that she had been out hustled, out organized, and out fundraised by Barack Obama's crackerjack campaign managers. In fact, if you look closely at the people standing in the crowds at these "Tea Parties", you will see a common denominator, uniquely American smugness that can only be achieved by angry white people with an incomplete command of two or three catchphrases, the kind who are always suspicious that their birthrights are being stolen right from under their noses.

I thought about the things I protested in my life as I mulled over the details behind this latest partisan assault masquerading as a populist movement against the American government. Years ago when I was in college, the only black English professor I ever took a class from was a part of the journeyman teaching circuit, taking short term jobs wherever she could find them. The good doctor's PhD, as far as I knew, was a real one. Her passion for her chosen field of study, African American literature, seemed genuine. The quality of her research appeared to be solid. I have no real recollection, though, of how much she had published.

My alma mater, one of the most venerated institutions of higher learning in the south, had been spending the income from their enlarged endowment like water in an effort to recruit the best academic talent to our campus. The good doctor liked what she saw, so she applied for tenure. I don't know the mechanics behind tenure, so all I can tell you is that she was denied tenure, although I would imagine that she may have been denied the right to even apply for tenure, or was possibly even turned down for a teaching position with immediate tenure.

So the good doctor fought back. She filed grievances through the proper channels. She lobbied the department chair. And she went outside the university, enlisting the aid of Atlanta's civil rights and protest community. Now that I think about it, I don't know how I ended up involved in the good doctor's struggle to gain a permanent position on the faculty. She had a way of putting things in terms that made it seem like you were letting yourself down if you didn't at least listen to what she had to say.

A determined band of students from her classes started meeting at the good doctor's house to do what we could for her cause. Inside her home, she took the gloves off. She spoke freely of the horrors she had suffered at the hands of college administrators across the country. She condemned the idea of so much authority resting in the hands of white men, who she felt were already predisposed to discount her scholarship because she was black and because she was a woman. To impressionable college students, her anti-authority rhetoric spoke to that thing in all people that age who were still largely dependents of their parents, their original authority figures.

We got to meet C.T. Vivian. We were supposed to meet the celebrated writer James Baldwin, in town to do research on the Atlanta child murders, who had ostensibly enlisted in the good doctor's cause to put outside pressure on the university to reconsider her application, but he never materialized. And there was a hodgepodge of old line civil rights protesters who milled around the good doctor's house on Saturday and Sunday nights as she plotted strategy.

But black college students, especially at a top flight mainstream university, are more conservative than College Republicans. Those descended from parents who had gotten along to get ahead knew instinctively to shy away from the limelight and refuse to sign protest petitions. Those who were less fortunate depended so heavily on the college for aid that they wouldn't do anything that might jeopardize their ability to earn a degree. Which only left the hard headed and the adventurous among us who agreed to stand up at a press conference for the good doctor and denounce the college administration. Being both hard headed and adventurous, I ended up being one of the key spokespeople for the good doctor's cause.

By the time we got to the press conference at the old Paschal's Restaurant and Hotel near downtown Atlanta, I'd learned a lot about protesting. From the dozens of us who gathered weekly at the good doctor's house, only three or four of us were actually willing to stand in front of the TV cameras in our mod "power to the people" black clothing and read our prepared statements. My mind was more on the silky haired, mocha colored goddess who stood beside me, a fine young woman from Michigan who hadn't given me more than the time of day before I became a protester than it was on the intent of my short speech.

Protesting became addictive. That spring semester, we protested something or another in front of the student center along with reinforcements from the Atlanta University schools. I sat in the ornate office of my university's president with a gonzo, balls to the wall partner-in-crime to present to the preternaturally cool president a set of demands for funding a new kind of African American organization on campus, since the Student Government Association seemed to have a stranglehold on the student activity fees we paid every year. I sat on a panel that spring at a symposium that pitted HBCU minority student concerns against mainstream university minority student concerns, where I proceeded to excoriate the status quo mindset among black college students.

When our protest for the good doctor didn't elicit a response from the university through any channels, public or private, she began to become desperate and bitter. Some of Atlanta's old line families, ones with connections to the university itself, she told us one evening a couple of weeks after the protest, were implicated in the Atlanta child murders, which was why the police were having a hard time making a case against anyone. And why the university was out to get her.

The balls to the wall guy who sat next to me in the president's office to help present our new black student organization proposals turned out to be some random black guy who had never been enrolled at the university. It turned out that he wasn't just always over at his girlfriend's dorm room - he was living there illegally, at least until the school kicked him out of the dorm and banned him from campus.

Everybody at the helm of these things had ulterior motives. But it was easy, if you didn't know what to look for, to get caught up in the emotion of group action. To feel empowered by the kind of leaders who understood your pain and suffering better than anybody else.

In a down market, as members of an out of favor political party, Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin seem to be making as much of a play for increased influence and a higher "Q" rating as they are making a push for economic justice. I just wish they would point their troops in the right direction - the abuse of corporate governance that has allowed CEO's to become financial rapists.

Hating the president is pointless if you are not RAISING MONEY and ORGANIZING NEW VOTERS for your own candidate, or grooming somebody other than Sarah Palin for president, or learning to get over your aversion to Mitt Romney's religion because he is the best chance you've got. Money and votes, not outrage and protest, are what will facilitate an administration change.

I actually realized halfway through this little rant that isn't fair, but the irony, at least in my mind, is that neither are these crazed fanatics, the kind of people who will get together to beat your brains out to protect "the sanctity of life" and then drive home past real live human beings in need that they could care less about.

The principles in most protests are based on basic core human values and good intentions. But it is the extreme rhetoric that is most revealing, whether it is an angry looking young black man standing in front of a TV camera denouncing a "paternalistic administration that treat professors like sharecroppers" or these legions of Americans, almost all of whom are white, who are angrily denouncing "the liberal media", "Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the new Obama Administration" or "socialists".

How do I know they are white? Go see for yourself:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/07/tea-party-on-taxpayer-revolts-in-green-bay-lafayette-olathe-and-harrisburg/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/21/liveblogging-the-lexington-ky-tea-party/

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/15/huge-thousands-converge-for-cincinnati-tea-party/

I tried the same thing on Google, since I'm apt to be biased in the links I provide. Try it yourself - type in "tea party taxpayer revolt" and select "images" from the Google toolbar, and you'll see that these protesters look suspiciously like the same white people in the Pelosi daughter's documentary who hated "that Muslim" running for president.

Maybe it's the way I look at the United States in the context of world history, but I've always thought of this country, at less than two hundred and fifty years old, as a nation entering its adolescence. Which means we are entering that awkward phase that all teenagers go through before they finally begin to come into their own as young adults. America's greatest days, I believe, are ahead of us.

The only advice I have for the protesters is the same advice my mother gave me the summer after my "semester of protest", when she learned about these activities for the first time during the break between my junior and senior year. "I think you need to remember," she said, with her patented left eye cocked open stare, the same kind that the actress Pearl Bailey used to use when she meant business, "why we sent you there."

My mother didn't want another Malcolm X - she wanted a college graduate.

And I assume that the Tea Baggers want more at the end of the day than a sore throat, so I suggest to my angry friends that you check your leader's ulterior motivations out to make sure their game plans can translate your ire into something that pays off for you as much as it is going to pay off for them.

From indie cartoonist Terrence Nowicki today:

(Click for big)

If you hold your foot just right, it ain't but four hours to Mexico - Crossin' Over, Lee Roy Parnell

The Mirida Inititive was announced in October 2007. Mirida was a King George pledge of $1.7 billion in US aid to Mexico for it's war on drug cartels. This life saving money may very well be en route, but according to my synchronized, bloodbath monitoring watch, they sure as hell didn't load it next to the Lonestar in Lee Roy's trunk.

Trunk management might not be his day job, but one of the guys charged with at least holding his foot just right is US Ambassador Antonio Garza.

Antonio had the distinction of being the very first person knighted by King George when he first began his rule of Texas. Knighted Secretaries Of State, especially those from the castle of Bracewell & Patterson, slay voting dragons, right?

And, since it seems to blend so neatly into our own fire breathing financial mess, the city of Merida just happens to be a hot spot banking & insurance center. Not to mention the fact that Mrs Knight happens to be a bank president.

Is it possible that someone forgot to do a trunk check upon Lee Roy's arrival? Or, unloaded the trunk and mistakenly handed the deposit slip to Spanish John?

Granted, Mirida isn't Lee Roy's normal run, and, they did force him to dispose of Spitzer at that little cantina along the way, but the "we don't need no stink'in badges" guys are coming up the hill. And, it looks like they even brought the "scum sucking pig" guy with them.

Crazy King Bogie has split for Dallas, but where are the mules? We don't need another story that we can't take back home. 

 

This is intended to be a somewhat continuing series in honor of National Poetry Month. I intend to post this series two or three times a week throughout the month of April with various themes.

The theme for this offering is, "Ode to the Moon."

In this and each of the offerings, I will present some poetry of note and a few of my own. I would hope that in the comments, a poem that follows the theme, original or one dear to the heart, might be shared.

 

With that, let's continue the series with...

 

 

Ode to the Moon

 

 

 

Full moon shining bright
Midnight on the water
Oh Aradia
Diana's silver daughter

Lady of the Moon
Lunar Goddess
Puller of seas

We greet your celestial jewel
At the waxing of its powers
With a rite in your honor

Lady
You are known by many names

Aphrodite
Kerridwen
Diana
Isis and many more.

-- Ancient Roman Prayer

 

 

 

The moon, methinks, looks with a watery eye; And
when she weeps, weeps every little flower.

-- William Shakespeare
"Midsummer Night's Dream"

 

 

I Sang
To you and the moon
But only the moon remembers.

I sang
O reckless free-hearted
Free-throated rhythms,

Even the moon remembers them
And is kind to me.

-- Carl Sandburg
"I Sang"

 

 

In my sky at twilight you are like a cloud
and your form and colour are the way I love them.
You are mine, mine, woman with sweet lips
and in your life my infinite dreams live.

The lamp of my soul dyes your feet,
the sour wine is sweeter on your lips,
oh reaper of my evening song,
how solitary dreams believe you to be mine!

You are mine, mine, I go shouting it to the afternoon's
wind, and the wind hauls on my widowed voice.
Huntress of the depth of my eyes, your plunder
stills your nocturnal regard as though it were water.

You are taken in the net of my music, my love,
and my nets of music are wide as the sky.
My soul is born on the shore of your eyes of mourning.
In your eyes of mourning the land of dreams begin.

-- Pablo Neruda
"In My Sky At Twilight"

 

 

 

 

Not Saints But Men

by

Justice Putnam

 

Swaying uselessly
In the loose wind
Floating in
Finite expectancy
Of summer without end

To have a great gift
And not know it

To only fantasize
And not actualize
Except on passion
For passion's sake

Caught in spidery entanglement
Of esoteric intrigue
While flowing in consciousness
Of personal design

 

(Blue River, Oregon 1985)

 

 

From Big Sur to Malibu

by

Justice Putnam

 

Are we the dispossessed?
The fleeting minds
Caught in a bleeding time
Seeking fame near
The sands of a
Television beach

Reaching for the stick
Shifting only to second gear
As another stoplight
Halts another long line
Of narrowed dreams?

We displace ourselves
And reach for another
Beer bottle in another
Surfside café

Antique gaffs
Hang from our window
And portraits of Jack London
Adorn the only potential
Bare spots on a seemingly
Aged wall.

A hungry crowd of pedestrians
Line the sidewalk

And occasional paper-bagged
Wine bottles are
Passed around.

We leave and cross the boulevard
To the metered parking lot.

We smell the red tide
Waft through the
Pillars of the pier

Hear the revving of engines
In syncopated time

With the lonely surf.

 

(Laguna Beach, California 1980)

 

 

And The Angels Weep

by

Justice Putnam

 

Honduran café
Mezcal afternoon
Straw-woven sombrero
La Concetta in green pantaloons

See how the jungle encroaches
Upon our palm-frond adobe
And the white sands of this
Martyred shore

 

(Playa Samara, Costa Rica 1980)

 

 

Ruined by Light

by

Justice Putnam

 

I was hanging in the night
Like some exotic fruit
On some secret tree

I was blowing
Or maybe drifting
In the cool hands
Of air that pressed me

Every leaf consented
To song and dance.

I lived among the poets
And the Atlas

Our sister fell easy
Like an Empire
Of Emotion
Into the encasing
Of our arms

We would rule the road

Often
Two of us
Would think
Of one woman.

I crossed the crying
Land of her hair
Low great sorrow
That was its length

Hollow long day

I know the slaughter
Of her perfect dream.

And the mad Greeks danced

Enflamed rooms

Illiterate
We proclaimed genius

Insanity was our revolution
That turned our anguish
Into kisses.

Knowledge may rule the world

But knowledge of her
And her wild cat expression
Of men wailing

Lost inevitably

I watch the air
Capture the room.

(Ann Arbor, Michigan 1978)

 

Frail Tears of the Universe

by

Justice Putnam

 

The moon hides transparent
Behind wet neon mist

Closed eyes
In the cold night
A nocturnal
Journey west.

She lies in a bed
Of black satin

Her skin
Soft
Reflected light

I turn
I think she
Is sleeping

But she moves
On her
Western flight.

I want her to know
I think of her
Though

The clouds are
In the way

And she moves
In a walking slumber

As night
Fades to day.

 

(Valley of the Moon, California 1988)

 

 

© 2009 by Justice Putnam
Fleur de Sel Musique
and Mechanisches-Strophe Verlagswesen

The bad news is that criminal defendants can’t get a lawyer in Georgia.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday … in Elbert County Superior Court, says hundreds of defendants unable to afford their own lawyers are not being provided representation as required under law. If lawyers for the defendants are not provided, their cases should be dismissed, the suit says.

This situation isn’t entirely remedied even if the defendants eventually obtain legal representation.

James E. Coleman Jr., an expert in criminal law at Duke Law School, who is not involved in the suit, said the absence of a defense lawyer for any period of time created an unfair advantage for prosecutors. Defense investigations should begin immediately after a suspect’s arrest, Professor Coleman said, so witnesses’ memories do not fade and evidence does not disappear.

The good news is that if criminal defendants get out on bail, it’s easy to flee the state.

Former Sheriff’s Deputy Derrick Yancey is charged with murdering his wife and a Guatemalan day laborer, 20-year-old Marcial Cax Puluc, in DeKalb County, Georgia. Yancey was under house arrest with an ankle monitor awaiting trial, but when he removed the monitor and fled, it took more than 12 hours for the Sheriff’s Department to find out that he was on the run.

With this kind of head-start, Mr. Yancey could have driven the 600 miles from Atlanta to Detroit and crossed the Canadian border before anyone knew he was missing.

Like all other public services in Georgia, both the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Department and the system to monitor house arrest are seriously underfunded, but the ridiculous inadequacy of all aspects of criminal “justice” in Georgia isn’t usually on display with high-profile defendants like Yancey.

It’s also worth mentioning that if the Elbert County defendants who have remained unrepresented for as long as eight months somehow managed to escape to a blue state (Go north, boys!), they are already provided with an affirmative defense against charges of flight to avoid prosecution, as well as a basis for resisting extradition, since Elbert County is manifestly unable to offer them a fair trial.

Jacob Freeze