Having grown up watching Sesame Street and Bugs Bunny, I was able to both read at a young age, and to understand adult humor at a young age.  Hence, when I was not quite ten years old, I could understand and appreciate the lyrics of John Phillips' "Straight Shooter".  Shoot straight from the hip both metaphorically, and literally....yeah.  Got it.  Cool.  "She's a real straight shooter" meaning, she tells it like it is.  "I'm a real straight shooter" meaning....whatever else it means.

My first recollection of pulling a trigger comes with my memory of visiting my second cousins in Westport, CT, and shooting a BB gun.  I was around nine years old and I had surprisingly good aim, but my sister had even better.

My next recollection, other than water pistols and cap guns, was when I first pulled the trigger of a .22 rifle and had very good aim then too.  I was in my early twenties, hanging out with my first boyfriend and his brother-in-law up in the Catskill Mountains of NY somewhere, shooting at targets in an empty field.

My next recollection of a gun - but this time I didn't pull the trigger - was when that same ex-boyfriend, who was many years older than me, caught me giving googly eyes to a very good-looking patron of a bar we were frequenting.  I went home with the older boyfriend without giving my name or number to the younger and better-looking bar patron (much to my regret, to this day) only to receive a lecture on how to stand by your man, which ended in my ex-boyfriend assembling his torn-apart hand gun and aiming it at me, only to move the aim about a foot away from me at the last moment before firing it at a 4 by 4 in our kitchen doorway instead.  Simply because a) he realized that aiming it too close to me might be dangerous and b) the kitchen window was directly behind me and he might innocently shoot a passer-by in the heat of his anger.  I took my belongings and myself to my mother's house that night, and then made the grand mistake of going back to this guy anyway.

I was young and stupid, what can I say?  And...I digress.

Fast forward to California and my next gun.  Well, not MY gun, but my next boyfriend and HIS gun.  Er, guns.

My next boyfriend, after I dumped the older guy, was a military brat.  Gorgeous, six years older than me, promising career in construction, half German and half black.  My mother met him and liked him.  He had a sister born in Germany, where his parents met and married (his father an MP, his mother a German secretary).  He himself was born in San Francisco, at the Presideo.  He was moved to KY shortly thereafter, but also got to visit both his Louisiana born and bred family, as well as his German born and bred family, before moving back to California where he had a good middle class life.

For some reason, he had a chip on his shoulder, though.  He claims it was because he was both black and white.  Me, being born white, I gave him that.  Couldn't argue with it.  Tried to sympathize with it.  Having since then read "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope", I still don't understand the chip on the shoulder routine but I can at least put myself into his shoes a little more.

And when I discovered a few years into our relationship that this guy REALLY liked guns, I tried to get into it.  I went to the range with him.  Fired a small little Bryco Arms gun meant for small-handed people, i.e., women or beginners.  He advised me to start small, with a handgun, so he bought this particular gun just for me.  I didn't like it, and told him so.  The shells scared me.  The little explosion in my hands scared me.  The fact that one misstep and I could kill somebody with this thing scared me.

So I sat, bored, with headphones on, and watched him fire his new shotgun, then his new rifle, at the range, and told him I didn't care for any of it.  I watched him continue to buy new guns, selling some here and there after he tired of them and found that they didn't quite shoot as smoothly as he'd hoped, or feel as good in his hands as he'd hoped.  I watched as he switched up more and more guns for ones that  were more powerful and more beautiful and much bigger that he liked more.....

Meantime, it's getting close to the year 2000 and he's stockpiling on gas masks and camouflage clothing for both of us and storing them in a trunk.

And I'm thinking.....okay.......here's a guy who's getting increasingly paranoid about Y2K and he's stockpiling guns and watching Fox News and hating on Clinton even more than I am, and he's got this chip on his shoulder for no reason, and he's abusive, and......buying more guns.  And taking them out, on occasion, for no reason, and polishing their stocks, and gazing down their scopes, while pointing them at our apartment walls in our living room.

And he's wondering why I'm getting more and more skittish around him.

Heh.

Well, those of you who know me, know that I ended up leaving him shortly thereafter.  After he put me in a choke hold and threatened to shoot me, or a cop, or himself if he came home that day to find me gone.  After he said this while stuffing a handgun into the waistband of his jeans.

This guy thinks he's sane.

This guy STILL can't understand why I left him.

This guy has guns.

Now, maybe the guy in VT and maybe the guy in AZ are more normal than my not-so-normal ex-bf.

But.....

Give me a man who respects guns, and doesn't use them to make a statement, and I'll give you a woman who can respect that man....maybe.  

And that's my statement.

Baby are you holding?
Holding anything but me?
Yeah!
Cuz I'm a real straight shooter if ya know what I mean!

In response to Josh's post today, I would like to hug him, but can't.  So I will simply give him this poem I wrote after I lost my own father in 2003. 

Daddy

Did you find all the answers
are you waiting to share them
Do you know how respected you are
 
Do you swim in the ocean
look down on the earth
and shine with the brightest of stars
 
Have you:
talked peace with Gandhi
had tea with kings
been to Atlantis
built Stonehenge again
 
Replayed time just to see the big bang
Played God only to hand over the reins
 
Are you currently sailing to far off lands
or sitting here silently holding my hand
 
I like to think that you're with me right now
I like to believe that you see me somehow
and know that you're missed and respected and loved
I like to picture you smiling above

- LisB

PS:  Josh -- Shalom

 

Lets hope that Obama takes this as a learning experience.

 "He's waited and waited," Daschle said yesterday after
 meeting with the president. "He has indicated, much to
 the chagrin of people in his party, that virtually
 everything's on the table. And he's gotten almost
 nothing in return for it."

 A move by Democrats to seek a partisan bill may
 provoke a backlash from Republicans and weaken public
 support for the health-care overhaul, Obama's top
 domestic priority. It might also result in
 watered-down legislation.

 Former Senate Republican Leader Bob Dole told
 reporters earlier this summer that while he believed
 the Democrats could pass a bill on a party-line vote,
 it would be a mistake.

The lesson being that republicans are only interested in making
political points. They are not interested in non-partisanship at
all.

I hope you have learned this Mr. president and that it does not
turn out to be a hard lesson indeed.

C

It was customary for Master and Student go spend time
each day walking along the paths that wound through the
mountains around the monastery.  One day, while Master
and Student were out walking, they came upon a cliff
edge.  Master boldly stepped to the very edge of the
rock and gazed lovingly at the valley below and the
surrounding mountains.  He then turned to Student, who
was standing quite safely back from the edge of the
cliff, and said "Come closer so that you can see the
beauty that is all around us."

"No thank you Master," replied the student nervously.
"I can see quite well from here."

"Nonsense," said Master.  "You must come closer."

"But I may fall.  Please Master, I am afraid."

"Trust me," said Master.  "I would not ask you to do
anything that would harm you.  Now come closer."

Slowly the student edged toward the cliff.  As he
reached the edge, Master smiled and put his arm around
Student.  "There," said the Master.  "Is it not a
beautiful view?"

"Yes, Master," admitted Student.  "It is quite
beautiful.  I did not know the valley was so far below
our monastery.  It is quite a drop to the valley
below."

"It is not so far," replied Master.  "Here at this
cliff you need but take a single step to reach the
valley floor."

"But Master," insisted Student.  "The drop from here is
great. If I stepped out here, I would surely die from
the fall."

"You will learn that the distance between life and
death is but a single step," Master told him.  "Our
life is one long series of steps.  We go through life,
step over step until one day we die.

"Each step brings us great joy and adventure as well as
the possibility of death.  But you can not simply stand
still in fear of meeting death upon the road.  Walk
boldly along the path of life.  Enjoy the wonders that
are there for us all to see. So that when the day comes
when you you do meet death, you will know that you have
not shrunk from life, but embraced it.

How many of us go through life in our protective cocoons ?
Feeling safe and secure. Some with cocoons made of money
only to find that money does not really protect as well as we
had thought. Causing the cocoon to unravel and expose us to
the world.

Or we make our cocoons out of nice pictures of the world the way
we want it to be. Like a soap bubble it reflects our view of the world
back at us. Giving the illusion of safety. But bubbles break and once
again we are exposed to reality.

Then there are those who build cocoons like a fortress. Thinking if
we use force and might, that no one can enter. But all fortresses
have a week spot and once again reality gets in.

Or do we except life on it's own terms and enjoy the beauty and wonder
it provides.

Most of us fall somewhere in between. Peeking out once in a while
to see if the coast is clear.

"But it is not your own Shire. Others dwelt here before Hobbits.
 Others will dwell here when Hobbits are no more. You can fence
 yourself in...but you cannot for ever fence the wild world out."
Gildor Inglorion


C

What does it look like? 

Is there a receptionist?

Is it one long corridor of cubicles that leads to Dick Day's office? 

Does Bwak leave a trail of feathers behind?

Does Strato fly in on a velvet cloud, drop off her copy, then fly off into the grand blue sky?

What happened that morning Obey walked in and found Lalo sitting in his Eames leaning chair?

How many times has middleclassbill pounded on LisB's wall asking her to turn the music down?

Is Oldengoldendecoy chiseling out cafe recommend rules on the ceiling?

Is Jason Everett Miller cursing at the person who, once again, left off a t while mis-stenciling his middle name on his office door?

What do we all wear on casual Fridays?

Do we have a ping pong table?  If we do, who's the best player?  Johnnienohands?

Is the cleaning lady who comes in at night actually davidfarrar in drag disguise?

Has Josh ever been to the TPM blogger's imaginary office?

Is Ramona's office really big enough for a Democrat wide intervention?  

Are Professor Amike, Flowerchild, Miguel, Synch, Old Grouch, Ripper and Aunt Sam, all sitting in the conference room but not sure who called the meeting?

Does Thera have an honorary corner office?  With a couch?

And who has the trap door beneath his/her cubicle that leads to a secret dungeon, with shackles and leg irons tailor made for Blunderdick and Widdle Dub?

Okay, I'm sorry not to have mentioned everyone else by name. (And everyone else by name knows who they are. I haven't even mentioned me, so don't feel bad.)  But feel free to chime in and help give me an idea of what our office space looks like.  

Maybe someone can volunteer to draw up a colorful blueprint once we solicit enough machinations on what the place looks like.  
 

 if 77% of americans want an alternative to paying insurance companies for medical care,

why is more than 77% of the televised debate time being given to industry mouthpieces that oppose it, and the screaming stooges that dont understand it?

i have yet to see a convincing argument for having insurance companies in the healthcare equation. the costs to our economy and the public health are now well known. so what is their value added?

 

 

(a/k/a "A Little Rant")

Checks and balances are more than just things we do at on online banking site.  Checks and balances are the reason we have a two-party system.  They're supposed to keep our government fair and balanced.  Ha.  It's about as fair and balanced as Faux News' reporting...

Quite a few people here have told me I'm unfairly beating up on the rich lately.  Well, perhaps I am.  In all fairness, there are a lot of good rich people.  People who give generously to college endowment funds and worthy causes, not just for the tax write-off, but because they genuinely want to help those less fortunate.  Good for them.  I admire and appreciate their efforts.

When I rail against the rich, I'm railing against the "filthy" rich.  The rich who acquire and amass their fortunes in order to buy the ear of a senator, for example.  The rich who acquire news outlets in order to influence the media.  The rich who rail against regulation while ruining our economy and then giving themselves bonuses for it.  Yeah....THOSE filthy rich.  The ones who think of us regular folk (i.e., the ever-dwindling so-called "middle" class) as peons and pawns, or sheeple.  The faceless masses.  "Consumers".  "Suckers".

I have to laugh at the tea-baggers who went to the recent town hall meetings screaming that they "want my country back!".  Shit, as far as I'm concerned, it was never taken away from them.  At least, not by US.  It was taken away from them by the lobbyists and Big Pharma and Wall Street, but most certainly not by Obama and not by us liberals.  In fact, we have more reason to cry out that WE want our country back than they do, dammit.

Maybe we should give Texas and Oklahoma to the right-wingers and gun-toting Libertarians and all the other crazies  and let them secede and run their little country to the ground.  Washington would run a whole lot better that way, no?

Okay, rant off.  Just had to get all this out of my head so I can listen to some good tunes and relax a bit.  Thanks for listening.

Look, I celebrate your right to freedom of speech, your right to share your opinion on health care, and indeed, your right to call your fellow Americans whatever the hell you please. But here are a few things to consider.

One: People who look like domestic terrorists scare away customers. You are standing in front of a business, and there's a strong likelihood that the capitalist who operates it would like you to go away.

Two: Shit happens. It's only a matter of time before some responsible gun owner comes home from one of these anti-universal Health Care events and leaves a firearm unattended, whereupon his kid will pick up the gun and shoot his baby sister in the face. Now: when that little girl shows up at one of the many trauma centers that those of us who aren't blinded by ideology are struggling to figure out how to pay for, what is your group going to do to help cover her bills? Pass the fucking hat?

Three: As I mentioned before, you guys are using the rhetoric, philosophy and activities of domestic terrorism. It's all just fun and war games until one of your compadres blows up a federal building and with it, a daycare center full of kids. I remember Timothy McVeigh. I remember the day. I remember the faces of the victims, their parents, their children.  I remember one of the dads who lost his wonderful daughter and dedicated his life to trying to forgive that son of a bitch. I remember Tim McVeigh's own dad, a decent enough guy, struggling to understand how his son could have shrugged off the death of children.

Where I'm going with this is that freedom brings with it a responsibility to look out for the common good, and that's what all us so-called "socialists" are trying to do here, figure out some way to provide health care for everybody at a price that won't break the bank. I don't see how standing there like a tool, impeding legitimate commerce, scaring your fellow Americans and putting people in danger is contributing to that goal.

To sum it up, you're free to work for the common good, or you can use your freedom to be a total asshole. Your decision--but if you decide to apply yourself to creating a solution along with the majority instead of pimping out your minority position with firearms, we'll be happy to see you at the solution table.

Now, get out of my way please. I'd like to go in and drink my goddamned coffee in peace. 

Today, August 22nd was supposed to be the big day for the Teabaggers, their  "Recess Rallies" all across the nation but here in the Chicago burbs at Judy Biggert's office in Willowbrook it just didn't work out that way for them. According to the report I read at TPM yesterday they've been organizing these Recess Rallies with FreedomWorks and the other usual suspects for months now through conference calls to organizers etc.

Some activists on our side, and I'm proud to say I'm one of them,  beat them to the punch. We raised some money from like minded individuals and bought ourselves a big canvass banner, about 8' wide by 4' high that says "HONK FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM" in foot high letters.  On 8' tall galvanized pipes it stands up high enough so all 6 lanes of traffic can see it.

Starting bright and early at 6:30am Thursday morning we set it up on the public parkway on Rte. 83 right outside the bank building where Biggert has her office. The bank manager came out and barked at us but he knows better, we're perfectly within out rights to picket outside our congresswoman's office on public property. That didn't stop him from calling the cops who came by to tell us we needed a permit from the Village of Willowbrook to be there. We'd already looked at the Village code and found no such ordinance but we acquiesced and I went over to Village Hall when they opened up at 9 and filled out a form. We were back out there with our banner at 2pm.

We set up again yesterday for both rush hours and that set the stage for today. I wouldn't be surprised to find out Biggert herself called on the "Liberty Alliance" or whatever the astroturfers are calling themselves today to please, please, please send some counter protesters  to her office today. They showed up at noon and by the time we put up our banner there were about 10 of them including a couple of little kids who quickly got bored.  They had some hand made posters and signs, one with HR3200 on it, with a circle and line through it. The others were totally ineffective, too wordy with small fonts nobody zipping around the corner could read more than half of. Most of them stood on 63rd St., not wanting to be near us and our banner which meant only about a 1/4 of the drivers even saw them. One brave soul though stood about 50' in front of us on Rte 83 with his poster that started with "Health Care Reform Now" before trailing off into some nonsense about ACORN and tort reform. I told him as he was leaving that where he was standing, near the middle of the right turn lane, didn't afford drivers more than a quick glance of his sign and they probably weren't able to see more than the first line as they drove past, so they probably thought he was on our side. The rest of them, standing behind us, were treated to a barrage of honking horns as folks turning the corner really layed it on when they realized they were teabaggers. Yesterday we got a lot of shy little taps on the horn. Today with the wingnuts irritating people those little beeps turned into blaring symphonies.   

We get a lot of happy faces, a lot of thumbs up and I can tell a lot of people are just happy and relieved to see us out there doing something. Occasionally some dumbass will honk to get our attention just so he can flip us off. I just smile and give him a thumbs up too. After all he is helping us even if he's too stupid to figure it out.

We started out with just two of us but after a few phonecalls there were six of us holding up signs. After just an hour and twenty minutes the wingnuts gave up, threw their trash on the ground and drove away. Our folks stayed until 3:30. By then all the honking must have driven Biggert to distraction, she left about 3pm. 

We'll be back again at Rte. 83 and 63rd St. Monday morning at 7am. If we get enough volunteers we'll be there all day every day except Sundays until Labor Day when dear deaf Judy goes back to DC in need of a hearing specialist. If we don't get enough vols we stay til 10am and come back for the evening rush. It's a very busy corner, so midday works just as well. If you're in the area come join us, or at least drive by and honk your horn.

Volunteer here

If you're not feel free to make your own banner and let your House rep or senator hear just how many people support health care reform in your district. It cost us about $250 to have this banner printed up, another one of our guys spent about $100 to rig up the steel pipe poles when the original flimsy aluminum poles that came with it failed. I'm sure you can make one a lot cheaper with a can of spray paint and a sheet. Bring folding chairs, water, sunscreen, an umbrella if it looks like rain. Then be ready to be the life of the party in more ways than one.

The point is do something. We did today and it felt very, very good to leverage the good will of drivers honking their horns to send the wingnuts packing. And while Biggert isn't willing to listen to us she can't help but hear those horns up in her ivory tower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcqGbNeTVnk&feature=player_embedded

Dr. Christsakes took a yawning breath and pushed the oars deeper into the Stygian river. Sticks and stones can break my bones, he thought, but death panels won't hurt my business. His rivercraft to the other side was full of previously middleclass baby-boomers and his palliative crew was busy setting the final rigging in the cool autumn air. The pre-fabricated vessel made flat line waves as they began their once-in-a-lifetime death trip across the river. Ironically, some religiously yearned to survive it. Since the recent election, it had been determined that rising health insurance premiums were a pre-existing perdition and that those without healthcare would be forced to wander the banks of America for one hundred years.

Recently re-animated by working for an enormous salary in insurance subsidized services, the good doctor's fairy had generated odious religious convictions and copious capital in the form of co-pays. Ontologically, the irreversible loss of personhood was on everyone's mind. But terrestrial evidence suggested that from the source, all rivers flow downhill, typically terminating in that notion.

Beginning as an evangelical death panel hypothesis, this "probability of living eternally without government healthcare" meme had morphed toward infamy; penetrating Alaskan swamp-gas radio shows, passing for treason under the gold-covered bridge to nowhere and landing somewhere beyond the conceptual horizon.  Quite rapidly the questions of what constituted a human condition and how we could determine its needs had emerged as a political issue both philosophically rich and patently unheard.

Like an itchy uncertainty prince, Dr. Christsakes gathered up the opiate expedition tickets from his one-way commuters. Under duress, everyone had purchased them before boarding the common antiboat. The boomers were a little short of funds as many had complications of under-remuneration regarding their impending retirements. Somewhat exhausted by medical bankruptcies, most had conscientiously set their personal affairs in order, ready to give it up - notwithstanding the stormy crowd who gathered on the other side of the blather.

Double Blue-Crossing the River Styx, some prepaid winky whacktivists carrying semi-autocratic weapons and turbo snakes were bused in by repelican propaganda corporations. Zoned out hotsy sympathizers carrying flipnfuck mattresses from Null-Mart struggled to block some boomers from joining the hospice hospitality lines. But standing there in the majority, democritters who had lost their voices while in exile for nine years were now drinking unbottled municipal water and making reality-based appeals to reframe their optional hopes.

"Have you ever read that poem by Dylan Thomas?" Dr. Christsakes finally asked his passengers with a sardonic smile. "After the first death, there is no other." All rose on their last legs, placing their binoculars of foresight into a care package for the living. They threw paper airplanes back toward the children crowded on the shore. Printed on the planes surface was House Resolution 676, Medicare for All. The other side outlined the titillating Cash for Punkers program, already funded by insurance conglomerates and moving like an engine in full revolution.

 ::::::::::::::::::::::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00676:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://www.hr676.org/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/death-definition/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/health/20doctors.html?pagewanted=6&ref=health

Fame or self. Which matters more?

Self or wealth. Which is more precious?

Gain or loss. Which is more painful?

 

He who is attached to things will suffer much.

He who saves will suffer heavy loss.

A contented man is never disappointed.

He who knows when to stop does not find himself in trouble

He will stay forever safe.

 

Tao Te Ching (Ch-44)

 

...the safest course is to do nothing against one's conscience. With this secret, we can enjoy life and have no fear from death.

 

Voltaire

 

JOHN ENSIGN

So what is Senator John Ensign to do? No drunk driving charge, BUT one would think he would find himself in some sort of travail. Do you not agree? When he was a congressman he voted to impeach my President. And he made it clear that Clinton deserved to be impeached for the adultery itself which demonstrated that Bill was not fit for public office.  At least that is what Ensign was saying in '98 & '99.

But here is a great line: Ensign told the AP on Wednesday that he can understand how some people might "have a problem" with the fact he called for Clinton's resignation but won't resign himself.

I mean at least Ensign knows that some people might have a problem with all of this.  How forthright of him.

Sen. John Ensign told The Associated Press on Wednesday that his affair with a friend's wife was different from former President Bill Clinton's relationship with a White House intern because he didn't lie about it under oath. "I haven't done anything legally wrong," the Nevada Republican said.

"President Clinton stood right before the American people and he lied to the American people," Ensign said. "You remember that famous day he lied to the American people, plus the fact I thought he committed perjury. That's why I voted for the articles of impeachment. "I think it would be inappropriate to start any other way than to say I'm sorry," he said. "I've said I'm sorry. I can't say I'm sorry enough. I made a big mistake in my life and I apologize once again to all of you."

First he is sooooooo very sorry. Yes, he is one of the sorriest sons-of-bitches I ever saw.

Second, anyone can see that there are huge differences between his actions and those of President Clinton. If you recall, Monica was not married at the time. Ha!!! So Bill Clinton was lying to at least one less person than Senator Ensign.

Third, there may a problem with those silly forms a Senator has to fill out sometimes. For instance, one has to file special forms concerning campaign funds; demonstrating where they came from and where they are going. Oh, and do not forget that if you lie on even one of these forms, you are guilty of a felony. But we are to think:

Ensign's attorney has also said that Ensign's parents paid the woman and her family $96,000 after learning about the affair. Ensign once called on President Bill Clinton to resign after his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky erupted in 1998, declaring: "The truth must come out."

Did you also realize that you can be as guilty accepting bribes as you would be paying them?  Or was our favorite Nevada Senator guilty of paying for extortion? I forget. But I know that mommy and daddy and sonny boy were all on the employment rolls for awhile.

"But if you look at the times ... I was in the House of Representatives but basically was sitting in judgment of the president evaluating the case. I was basically a jurist at that point. I thought there was a violation of a felony," he said.Later Wednesday he toured a U.S. Forest Service project at Lake Tahoe aimed at thinning forests to reduce fuel loads in an effort to reduce wildfire threats. On Thursday, he is scheduled to host the 12th annual Tahoe Environmental Summit that Clinton and Vice President Al Gore first hosted in 1997.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/19/ensign-i-did-nothing-lega_n_263499.html

I really include this gem because every time repubs speak of the environment they discuss the importance of 'thinning the forests' because only lumber interests can prevent forest fires. Do you realize that if we just stripped the forests bare, we would not have any forest fires at all.  Goddamn greenies!!! (Blesses himself) The more trees we have, the more trees we have to burn down. It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. This is just another example where Senator Ensign was trying to help us all out.

CREW is one of those organizations that is seeking an investigation by the Senate into Ensign's campaign books as well as his personal accounting

Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said Ensign's distinction between his situation and that of Clinton was essentially an attempt to claim his affair was less contemptible. "Isn't that a little like saying, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?'" she said in a statement Wednesday. "One politician comparing his illicit affair to another's is a sure sign his career is in trouble."

MARK SANFORD

Okay. I mean who the hell would not fall in love with a beautiful woman named Maria Belen Chapur?  And besides, she does strike a resemblance to his own wife.

(But)... this is the kind of stuff that could still end up costing him his job. Using Freedom of Information requests, an Associated Press investigation has found that Sanford took 35 flights on private planes, which he failed to list on ethics forms or campaign filings. South Carolina law requires him to report any gift over $25 received in a single day, or anything received over the course of a year worth at least $200, "if there is reason to believe the donor would not give the thing of value" but for his position.

In what is apparently a misguided effort to exonerate his boss, Sanford spokesman Ben Fox explains that political groups and longtime friends paid for the flights. Says Fox, "That was our standard operating procedure."

See, I figured he would get off too. I mean standard operating procedure and stuff. We must remember that SC attempted to secede from the Union twice and they were going to actually let all the South Carolinians go but how the hell would you get from North Carolina to Georgia without SC. I mean you would really have to go the long way 'around'.  Where was this standard operating procedure for Bill Clinton when Sanford voted as a Congressional Representative to impeach him? 

Oh wait a gosh darn minute here. Why Governor Sanford never lied under oath? Did he? Well wait another gosh darn minute here.

Sanford's travel habits have already attracted attention for their ethical implications, but his lawyer, Butch Bowers, says that it's up to the governor to make the call on what kind of friendships are the state's business. "That's inherently subjective, and that subjectivity is necessarily grounded in the person doing the reporting." Fox, the governor's spokesman, adds that maybe the groups flying the governor around should have to do the reporting. http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/?last_story=/politics/war_room/2009/08/21/sanford_ethics/

You know I would just bet that the good gov might have had to fill out some forms with regard to these 'official trips' providing chits and such. Some sort of substantiation for his government paid junkets.

HORACE COOPER

The Justice Department issued a five-count indictment Friday against a former aide to then-Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) in the ongoing influence-peddling investigation tied to disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Horace Cooper, who worked on the Hill from 1994 until late 2001, is charged with conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, false statements and obstruction of an official proceeding.

According to the indictment, Cooper accepted more than $5,000 worth of gifts from Abramoff and his colleagues between 1998 and 2000, during which time he served as director of coalitions in the Majority Leader's office. The gifts included tickets to professional sporting events, as well as concerts such as 'Nsync and the Dixie Chicks.

I got to stop here a minute. I have some serious questions about all this. WHAT IN THE FUCK IS A REPUB GOING TO A DIXIE CHICK CONCERT FOR ANYWAY? No wonder he ends up being indicted. The Republican National Committee frowns upon these types of goings on you know.  If it was a Chuck Norris movie or something; but jeeeeeeeeeeeez. No wonder he could not find a good lawyer.

The indictment also charges Cooper with accepting an additional $9,000 in similar gifts during his subsequent tenure as an official at Voice of American and then the Labor Department. Those gifts also included meals at Abramoff's now-defunct Signatures restaurant. Cooper is scheduled to appear in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Sept. 9  http://www.rollcall.com/news/37889-1.html?ET=rollcall:e5376:80074465a:&st=email

Can you imagine the phone call that must have taken place during all this?

Cooper:  Hello? Dick is that you?

Armey:   Who is this anyway?

Cooper:  Why it's Coop. Horace Cooper.

Armey:    Never heard of you. (Click!!!)

Tickets to games and concerts?  Guess which one of these three crooks faces the hammer of Justice in this country?

Why those lower down the scale, those with lesser power.  Talk about the Scales of Justice!!!!

A year or so ago on another site in another blog, I wrote about my crippling condition and how I was coping/not coping with it. When I was thirty, I was diagnosed with arthritis in my right knee and was told to lose weight, exercise, quit smoking, and don't drink. Of course, I ignored those admonitions. I am paying for that now, at age fifty-two.

I quit drinking fourteen years ago, and quit smoking in May of this year. I have begun to slowly lose some weight. None of this has made a difference in my legs, though. They have refused to work for the last several months. My knees have become swollen, misshapen, and chronically painful. I hobble, at best. At worst, I cannot stand or walk without assistance.

Like many Americans, I am without insurance. I recently enrolled in the State of Wisconsin's version of Medicare, which is called BadgerCare. It will enable me to get some help for my legs, and other problems I am experiencing, but like so many bureaucracies, there are snarls and snafus I have to deal with that have prevented me from receiving any of the benefits of the program for now. I am trying to find a lawyer who can help me negotiate the minefield that is Social Security Disability Insurance.

Recently, I phoned the White House to express my anger at the notion that a public option was now off the table. Instead of ranting angrily, I burst into tears---something that has happened frequently of late. I cry incessantly---from the pain in my legs to the pain in my head because I am no longer capable of doing things I used to take for granted---like walking. Instead of rising enobled from this debilitating condition to become a role model for others with disabilities, I am reduced to a weeping, self-pitying, frightened woman who wonders what will become of her. The person who answered my call at the White House seemed genuinely concerned for my well-being, but I felt very much as if I was just another person in a long line of people who weren't happy with the way health care reform was moving along (or not), and unhappy with the Obama administrations efforts to make national health care a reality---as promised during his campaign. The woman who took my call seemed sympathetic, but unmoved by my tears. I wonder if this has happened to others.

I don't want sympathy. I want medical care. I want to get my knees fixed. I want to work and walk and be able to bend over and pick something up off the floor without falling over and I want to be a productive member of society again. I realize there are jobs one can do sitting down, and I have some skills that would allow me to make a living that way, except that the arthritis has spread to my right wrist and I have developed carpal. I want to have my body back so I can earn my keep. I do not want to be disabled. I have fought that idea for years, and now I cannot escape it.

My story isn't unusual. I know that. I know I'm one of millions.

One of millions without health care, hope, and the right to pursue happiness.

Say, hypothetically, that the appearance of people with guns outside of those town halls caused enough outrage to encourage new gun control legislation.  Someone proposes it, it gets passed and signed into law.  As a result, what Chris & William did is now illegal.  Handguns are pretty much banned, & public display of rifles is banned.

Here's the question: why would people like that actually comply with such a ban?

Seriously, where's their incentive to not defy the law?  Wouldn't the result just be that they have firearms but people who disagree with them don't?  Suppose some of their fellow travelers come unglued, doesn't that make it easier for them to potentially kill people?

This is one reason among many that I favor an armed Left.  Another reason would be the frequency with which cops abuse their power (click here & scroll for some examples), and my resulting skepticism of the idea that the police deserve to be trusted with firearms more than anyone else.

Thoughts welcome...

I've gone from cheerleading for health care reform ... to angry frustration with the Right's domination of the message war ... to deep disillusion at President Obama's lack of public conviction for the Public Option ... to blaming the Left for its own splintered impotence.

I must seem quint-polar by now.

The fact is, I feel all of the above ways at once because there's truth in all of those feelings and all of those observations. So how to make sense of them in one coherent plan of action? That is the question. And here's my answer:


What Obama Must Do:

1. The president must slacken the sails of the Far Right and the Tea Party movement. He can do that by announcing a policy of no new bailouts and tough new regulation of the financial and banking sectors. Opposition to health care reform is partly a carry-over of conservative resentment stemming from TARP, the bailouts and kid glove treatment of Wall Street. If Obama gets tough on the greed sector, it will simultaneously encourage the Left and help disarm the Right.

2. The president must be clear that he wants the Public Option in the final bill. It would cost him exactly ZERO. There's no chance that a single Senate Republican will sign onto the Public Option or any health care bill at all. The House won't pass a bill without one. So just get behind it and go. It's a game changer that shakes up GOP opponents and puts the pressure squarely on the Blue Dogs, where it belongs.

3. Take the fight to the enemy. That's the Blue Dogs, remember? We've already written off the Republicans. So twist arms, make deals to support pork projects, whatever. Go into full campaign mode in the Blue Dogs' own back yards and don't stop until Congress votes on the final bill. Get the entire White House on the same page and turn everyone who can be spared -- from Sebelius to the surgeon general -- out on the campaign trail. Leave the vice-president at home.


What Activist Groups Must Do:

1. Convene a conference call and make nice. Agree to a common agenda. Streamline decision-making from the 20-person steering committees common in most organizations to a single executive in each group empowered to commit resources for purposes of this fight. Forge one unified plan of action that encompasses a) the short-range goal of passing reform with a Public Option now and b) the mid-range goal of supporting Single Payer after the mid-terms. Step on it. This should have happened last year.

2. Create a single umbrella group that speaks for all, coordinates volunteers for all and drives a single message for all.

3. Open a new web site that is a single point of entry for the common agenda and for all groups.


What We Must Do:

1. Understand what it is you're fighting for and be realistic. Forget a March on Washington. It either won't happen or won't amount to much. Read the bills or at least detailed summaries of them. Post the links to these below if you know them. If Single-Payer is your bottom line, you may be overlooking what you have to gain from a government-run Public Option. Come to grips with this: Single-Payer has no chance this year, and passage of a Public Option now will further your cause when Single-Payer's time arrives.

2. If you haven't faxed, phoned or written your Congressional delegation, do it now. Write an op-ed for the local paper. Query the editor first for length and style requirements. They might print it. Odds are even better they'll print a letter to the editor, usually no more than 250 words. Don't be acidic or paint a utopia. Lay out the facts calmly and compellingly.

3. Take a day off from writing blog posts. Contact every activist group you can find and demand they get on board with the points above. Tell them you won't donate money or time until they unite the clans. Start with H-CAN, Healthcare Now! and their lists of affiliates. Continue making that demand with your state organizations, like Missouri Single Payer, etc., down to the local level.

4. Organize an event in your home. Do this now. Organize a march to someplace symbolic, like a local congressional office or the sidewalk in front of a drug maker or insurance company. Time your biggest events to occur several days ahead of important landmarks in the legislative process, such as committee votes or floor debates.

I know this plan sounds crazy, but that's what I like about it.

There is something very wrong with this picture. The financial sector gets to screw up big time and put the worlds finances on thin ice but when it comes to America having healthcare like any other developed country we get dumped on. Not to mention the criminals who made the financial mess are all still right there figuring out ways to screw us. All while they are throwing millions at our elected officials campaign coffers. With our tax dollars. I'll bet they expect us to pay our taxes next April 15th too. I know Bill Maher said Americans are stupid and he makes a good point. The question is just how stupid are we?

This is bullshit!!!!

I don't mean to be a wet blanket here, but near as I can tell, Tom Ridge has not admitted that the terror alerts were timed for political reasons during the Bush administration.  He is saying that the Bushies once attempted to do it -- just before the 2004 election -- and he valiantly refused. It's a self-serving "admission" that acknowledges no instances in which the threat level was actually raised to serve George W. Bush's political needs.

Now I still suspect that politics were involved in the timing of the terror alerts.  But that doesn't mean Ridge has conceded the point.  To do so, after all, would be to admit complicity and culpability.  And for now, at least, Ridge doesn't appear to be doing so.

Crossposted at jesselava.com.

Kgb999 and diachronic had an interesting exchange on Rutabaga's blog a couple of days ago.  It was off-topic, so I didn't want to jump in there.  But I would like to comment on the issues raised.

Kgb wrote: But ultimately, like with the Zelaya situation, they [USSC] are the arbiters of what the law means.  This is true to an extent, but it needs to be emphasized that In Honduras it is Congress who is the final arbiter on Supreme Court decisions.  This wasn't so with the original constitution, but rather resulted from a modification legislated in the past few years.  I apologize for not having a citation at hand - it would take a few hours to find it - if it became a burning issue I would find the citation.  My point here is to support the conclusions of review organizations have rendered that the Honduran Supreme Court is strongly politicized.

Wikipedia actually has a very good page on the Supreme Court of Honduras.  Of particular interest is something that has been largely ignored the the media, and that is that the Supreme Court which acted against Zelaya had been seated on June 25, 2009 - in a midnight session of congress.  According to Wiki, it was a controversial appointment.  In the first place, the Zelaya Administration was pushing for the reappointment of Justice Sonia Marlina Dubón de Flores , although the nominating board had not chosen her.  In fact, the selection of the nominating board was in itself controversial.  Instead of voting for individual nominees, congress was asked to vote for two "blocks" of nominees, chosen by the dominant National and Liberals (both politically right wing).  The leftist parties , United Democracy & Innovation, and the Unity Party abstained from the vote in protest.   Please note the date; June 25, 2009.  It is the same day that the Honduran Attorney General issued a secret detention order request against President Zelaya, and the next day, June 26, the new Supreme Court secretly issued the requested detention order.  At some point between midnight on the 25th and the end of the work day on the 26th, the brand new Supreme Court would have had to consider all the facts in a complicated case and issue a competent decision. 

In response to kgb's point, diachonic linked to a very good summary of legal issues that point to inpropriety by the Honduras coup participants, especially as it relates to international law.  However, I would like to take issue with one small part of Doug Cassel's article - a point that does not diminish what the author is saying, but one that is of utmost importance in the issue of the prelude to the Coup d'etat. 

On the day he was deposed, President Zelaya, in violation of a court order, was attempting to conduct a referendum on whether to call a constitutional convention.

In common speech, "referendum" is often exchanged with "plebisite" and even "public opinion poll."  I don't know if this is true with Honduran Spanish, but insofar as legal language, which ever attempts to be precise as possible, the terms are not interchangeable.  My own Black's Law Dictionary  (which is showing its age) defines "referendum" in three cases: 1) International law - a diplomat consulting her/his home government in regard to matters presented to him which he is unable or unwilling to decide without further instructions; 2)  constitutional law (Switzerland and elsewhere) - a method of submitting and important legislative measure to a direct vote of the whole people; 3)  Initiative -Right reserved to the people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has been passed by a legislative body, and which, in most cases, would without action on the part of the electors become a law.

Black's defines plebiscite as a type of referendum, but it is both radical and rare.   In modern constitutional law, the name "plebiscite" has been given to a vote of an entire people...expressing their choice for or against a proposed law or enactment, submitted to them, and which, if adopted, will work a radical change in the constitution, or is beyond the powers of the regular legislative body.

The argument goes like this:  If President Obama asked for a show of hands in a Town Hall Meeting for everyone who supports the public option in National Health Care, could he be charged with conducting an unconstitutional referendum ?  If DNC sent out a questioaire asking voters if they supported single payer are they guilty of conducting a referendum outside the legal framework which governs such things in the USA.  Of course not.  Both cases would represent non-binding public opinion surveys.  Therefore, using the term "referendum" to represent a non-binding public opinion survey is distortional and leads one to believe that the Honduran questionaire is somehow illegal.

Kgb999 responds to diachronic with several points that he observed were absent in Doug Cassel's article.  He identifies two areas that concern him:

Thus far my focus has been two fold, #1 what was the legal basis for the challenge against Zelaya's public consultation, and #2 what was the basis for criminal charges being brought against him. In the first case, the argument was that the proposed constitutional assembly (and inherent dissolution of the existing constitution) was in violation of Articles 373, 374, and 375 of the Honduran constitution. On it's face that would seem to be an accurate complaint - hence the court issued an injunction against the consultation until the constitutional issue was argued in court.

Now #2 gets interesting. There is the simple layer, which is that Zelaya was in contempt of court and took actions in direct defiance of court orders and in violation of the law. But it's actually a bit deeper than that. It seems that they also accused him of attempting to violate Article 375 by dissolving the constitution. I think there is some validity to the argument that the act of dissolving the constitution would eliminate EVERY article protected under Article 374 ... including those in relation to presidential term.

Here are the relevant constitutional Titles, Chalpters and Articles:

TITLE VII
AMENDMENT AND INVIOLABILITY OF THE CONSTITUTION

CHAPTER I
Amendment of the Constitution

Article 373
The amendment of this Constitution may be decreed by the National Congress, in ordinary
sessions, with two-thirds of the votes of all its members. The Decree shall specify for that
purpose the article or articles that are to be amended, which must be ratified by the subsequent ordinary legislature, by the same number of votes, in order to take effect.

Article 374
The foregoing article, this article, the articles of the Constitution relating to the form of
government, national territory, the presidential term, the prohibition from reelection to
President of the Republic, the citizen who has served as President under any title, and to
persons who may not be President of the Republic for the subsequent period may not be
amended.

CHAPTER II
The Inviolability of the Constitution

Article 375
This Constitution does not cease to be in effect nor does it cease to be in force by act of force or when it is allegedly repealed or amended by any means or procedure other than that which it itself provides. In these cases, every citizen, whether or not invested with authority, has the duty to cooperate in maintaining or reestablishing its effectiveness.
Persons responsible for the events specified in the first part of the foregoing paragraph, as
well as the principal functionaries of governments that may subsequently be organized, shall be tried in accordance with this Constitution and the laws issued in conformity therewith, if they have not assisted in immediately reestablishing the rule of this Constitution and the authorities constituted in accordance therewith. The Congress may, by a vote of an absolute majority of its members, decree the forfeiture of all or part of the property of those persons and of others who have enriched themselves by supplanting the sovereignty of the people or by usurping the public powers, to compensate the Republic for any losses incurred on account of them.

As to issue #1, the legal basis for outlawing the opinion poll was tenuous.  To start off, you have to confuse "opinion poll" with "referendum."  Had the matter gone to court, as the constitution requires, I'm sure Zelaya's first line of defense would have been to challenge this conflation of terms.  Luis Alberto Rubí, the Public Prosecutor, did just that.  In the first of four allegations against Zelaya, Rubi argued offense against the government, based on 328 No. 3 of the Penal Code.  This asserts that any attempt to consult the public was prohibited except for those defined as plebiscites and referenda, reserved to other government entities. [link]  Rubi's second allegation is treason, Art 2, 4, and 5.7 of the constitution.  5.7, Rubi claims, prohibits referenda and plebiscites that are a threat the stone article 347, which, if you look above, is a term limit article.  And this is important.  Although the ubiquitous article 239 appears nowhere until the post facto document from Congress, citing 347 automatically implies 239, in that the latter defines the former.  Art. 2 deals with "treason" - The supplanting of popular sovereignty and the usurping of the constituted powers shall be considered crimes of treason against the Fatherland.  Art. 4 deals with changing the form of government as treason.

Rubi's third allegation is abuse of authorith; failing to comply in judicial or administrative orders.  And the fourth and final allegation usurping the government, based on Rubi's idea that the public opinion poll (which he already has accused of being treasonous and illegal) should be carried out by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.

All these allegations rest on two things: that Zelaya was trying to run for a second term and that a popular opinion poll was a referendum or plebiscite.  I believe that Zelaya's lawyers could have successfully defended him had the case gone to trial.  But it will never go to trial since due process has been so severely abused by the coup leaders.  I would think a simple motion to demurr would do the trick.

I personally believe that Zelalya was guilty of ignoring a court order, but my goodness, put that in perspective.  It's akin to Carl Rove ignoring a congressional subpoena.  The remedy? a public flogging in the form of an admonishment.  It doesn't rise to the level of treason or even a trial.

Kgb666 asks an important question: One big questionmark is what the actual referendum Zelaya tried to pull off would have accomplished.  While not a "referendum" the purpose of the opinion poll was obviously political.  Zelaya was handed a petition with 600,000 signatures from "the people" to have a constitutional assembly.  In the Nov. 2005 election in Honduras, there were 3,988,605 registered voter, and only 46% showed up at the polls.  That about 15% of registered voters who expressed their desire for a new constitution.  So how many other Honduran are unhappy with the existing constitution?  The result of the public opinion survey would indicate this, one way or another.  I don't think anyone but the most idealistic believed that the the poll would lead to the fourth ballot box.  Look at the procedure involved.  If the majority answered in the affirmative, the matter would go to congress, and congress have to decide with a 2/3rd vote to have the fourth ballot.  Chances of that, considering the political composition of congress, are just about nil.  The political power of the poll, however, is substantial. Those politicians who serve the interest of the oligarchs would have a difficult time boasting about how democratic they are.

President Obama,

Sir, it's time you went into complete campaign mode.  You need to visit the television circuit again.  You need to visit those kind of shows where you have time to actually get your points across about health care and the economy.  You could tell your side of what you want from health care and point out the lies that are being told.  It would also give you a chance to tell Americans the good points about the economy.  It's time to sell the package again sir!

You need to go onto Charlie Rose's show, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jamie Fallon's Late Night, Larry King, The View, The Ellen show and lastly, Oprah.

I would also recommend having Rachel Maddow interview you or Keith Olbermann.

Instead of getting 10 second clips of you at townhall meetings on television every other night, you can get at least 10-20 minutes of free airtime to speak your mind. 

Go live sir.  You are your one best seller of any product.

Meanwhile sir, make up your mind; you are either FOR a public option or you are AGAINST one.  Once you've made up YOUR mind -- then fight for it like hell.

Back in February, Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) stated his belief that the Taliban represents a useful model for Congressional Republicans to follow. Beyond being the "loyal opposition", it is unclear what the relevant lessons from the Taliban were. The two things that are clear are that Sessions sees the role of the GOP as a political insurgency and that his primary goal is for his party to reclaim the majority.

After watching Republicans for seven months, a better model seems to be the Sunnis of Iraq. The 2003 Iraq invasion had the effect of pushing the Sunni minority out of power. Out of fear of being marginalized by the Shi'a majority, many Sunnis boycotted the 2005 elections. Their marginalization became self imposed.

Though the Republicans have been pushed out of power through an organic shift, they too have made the conscious choice to boycott the political process rather than make use of the power they have to create compromise. Like a small child with a bruised ego, the GOP has repeatedly taken their marbles and gone home. Their actions indicate that the primary goal is not one of influencing policy but to gain power.

Where a militant insurgency uses violence to achieve their goals, the Republican political insurgency uses rhetoric. And since their goal is power for power's sake, they attempt to inspire fear and outrage against their opponents wherever possible. This is accomplished through deceit and distraction.

The problem is that a fairly common outcome is loss of control within insurgencies. Sooner or later, insurgency movements tend to splinter leading to protracted periods of violence and general insecurity. The divisions tend to happen between moderate and hard-lined factions disagreeing on a compromised solution or ideologically distinct groups no longer held together by a common enemy. Even in situations where there is a fairly well defined power structure and concrete ideological goal (such as the Irish or Indian independence movements of the first half of last century), an insurgency is a very difficult thing to control.

While this would not be a problem if Republican politicians' behavior occurred in a vacuum, the party would simply crumble and collapse in on itself. But in their quest for power, they have been feeding the ignorance, conspiratorial fears, hatred and racism of a marginalized segment of society. This dance with the devil is sure to backfire for many of these politicians because the people giving them power are not supporters but rather opponents of Obama and the Democrats. Therefore, these politicians will have to adopt increasingly hardline views or risk losing that power. This was demonstrated during McCain's campaign where he was booed by crowds on the occasions he attempted to throw water on the flames he previously stoked.

Unfortunately, the damage which has been and continues to be done will not easily be reversed. The tea party / birther / 9-11 truth movements have no true leaders (not unlike the Republican party) and those who try to moderate or walk back any of the canon beliefs are quickly rejected. The conspiratorial attitudes are so entrenched that they have become self-consistent. Anything which contradicts things "known" to be true is held as being a clear piece of deception. Therefore the movement is likely to grow in intensity and, to a lesser degree, size with a plausible result being a moderate portion engaging in real violence.

Many in the Republican party have been slow to condemn the violence and displays of force thus far, but a number have been quick to call for the escalation in at least a theoretical manner. The most outrageous example being Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) requesting her supporters be "armed and dangerous" in statements difficult to interpret as anything but a call for violent revolution. Glenn Beck has been more careful in his diction but his rants are also likely (and probably intended) to foment violence.

It seems unlikely that Sessions was aware of the accuracy in his assessment of the role Republicans currently hold in this country. But if allowed to continue unchecked, the path they are currently on could quite possibly lead to fairly widespread violent opposition of the government. The views of those willing to take up arms for the far-right's cause are so warped it is unclear how to effectively correct their misconceptions. What is more clear is the culpability of those so eager to stoke these flames for their own personal gains.

The NYT has a hair-raising piece on the US government's ongoing love-hate story with the sociopathic private military-spying-anti-terrorism outfit formerly known as Blackwater. I'll assume for present purposes I don't need to introduce the reader to the problematic nature of the beast we're dealing with (otherwise see Dickday's introduction). But it is clearly someone to be avoided if possible. And I thought the close ties established during the Bush years had been or were being unwound. Wrong; "I just can't quit you" seems to be the administration line, which would be laughable if it weren't scary.

It is frightening enough to think of these trigger-happy cowboys tasked with protecting civilian government personnel in war zones. But the State Department's relationship with this company and others perhaps marginally more serious is the least worrying part of the story.

The C.I.A. and the State Department are both trying to reduce their dependence on outside contractors, but the administration is also struggling to deal with an overstretched military and spy service.

In the case of the C.I.A., outsiders still help carry out some of its most important jobs, including collecting intelligence in foreign countries, dealing with foreign agents, and taking part in covert programs.

Perhaps I should calm down. Maybe this is just a marginal side of intelligence activity, these agencies every once in a while hiring outside language, technical expertise. Why not? So what tiny percentage of the intelligence budget goes to these unaccountable mercenaries?

Government officials have estimated that about 25 percent of the intelligence workforce consists of contractors, and as much as 70 percent of the entire intelligence budget goes to outside contracts. Yet these are rough estimates, and members of Congressional oversight committees lament that they cannot get reliable figures about the extent of intelligence outsourcing.

So we don't know - due to lack of oversight - how central the real mercenaries are to the more sensitive sides of intelligence activity. And I don't know how much the nutballs at Xe are involved. And I don't know how nutty the other private outfits in this burgeoning 'intelligence industry' are. So I'll just ask the theoretical questions.

1. Should corporations who have a vested interest in creating More War and instability around the world be given the task of providing the information on which a nation assesses whether war is necessary?
2. Should private corporations, whose main appeal is that they make agents less accountable for their actions to government and the justice system, be entrusted with the most sensitive and crucial of all of government activity - national security-related intelligence gathering?
3. Should private military companies, whose very business model is premised on the poaching of the best qualified intelligence and military personnel, thereby reducing 'public sector' (how strange to use this term in this context) capability in these areas, thereby creating a need for private contractors, thereby becoming indispensable to government, even be allowed to exist?
4. Are they even cost-effective?

It seems insane to be in the position of asking these questions in seriousness, frankly.

What's next?! Outsourcing the writing of all federal legislation to the special interest private industries by filling Congressional staff with industry hacks?! Oh, already done.

How about outsourcing vote-counting in national elections to private industry with partisan political allegiance, haha? Oh already done.

Or, hilarious idea, outsourcing the Treasury and the financial policy it administers to private mega-banks' CEOs and board-members? Oh, I see...

Okay, even crazier, how about we outsource health care to private 'insurance' companies whose business model is premised on finding a way to have people die before they can access health care? Oh...   

On a more general note, if you're wondering why so much credence is given in the mainstream debate to insane ideas, it's because insane is the new normal. In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is not king. He's pegged as a hallucinating lunatic and locked up.

In yesterday's Washington Post, Eugene Robinson suggests that one reason why health care reform is stalling is lack of passion on the Democratic side:

How could this happen? The Pew survey suggests, basically, that Republicans are more passionate about the health-care issue than Democrats.

According to Pew, those who would be "pleased" if health-care reforms proposed by Obama and Congress are enacted outnumber those who would be "disappointed." But when you look at those who feel most passionately about the issue, just 15 percent say they would be "very happy" if the reforms go through, while 18 percent say they would be "angry." Among Republicans, a full 38 percent would be angry if health-care reform finally passes -- but among Democrats, just 13 percent would be angered if it doesn't.

But percentages might not be as important as absolute numbers here. I don't know what the current levels of party affiliation are right now, but right after the last election, many more people considered themselves Democrats than Republicans. Republican affiliation has shrunk down to a much more dedicated, wing-nuttier core than ever before.

If a whole lot of lukewarm Republicans became lukewarm Democrats, and Sarah Palin were the only Republican left, then a 100% of Republicans would be angry if there were health care reform and the percentage of Democrats who would be angry if there were no health care reform would be much lower than it currently is. But obviously, one would hardly expect health care reform to stall on account of that (though of course, the reasons why it is stalling would be operative then too, and the Dems would still be trying to reach a bipartisan solution in which Palin got two thirds of what she wanted and the rest of the country got one third of what it wanted).

If one factors in Independents, although the percentage of the enlarged Democratic-Independent group that would be angry if there were no health care reform would probably go down, there would very likely be a larger number of people absolutely who were passionate about getting real reform than of people who will be angry if there is real reform.

Of course, if Robinson were just talking about Democrats and Republicans in government, then he might be on to something. The real cause of the stalling of health care reform lies with the failure of almost every elected official involved in leading the fight for reform to show some backbone.

Cross-posted at my blog Blogical Investigations.

I sent this as a comment to Bob Herbert's column in today's New York Times:

Maybe people are "all wee-weed up" because Obama is waffling on the public option, escalating with no exit strategy in Afghanistan, waffling on "don't ask don't tell", dragging his feet on a withdrawal from Iraq, etc. Start leading aggressively on these issues and we'll wee-wee down.

There are many ways to talk about the "unnecessary death rate" of a developed country. I linked to one article defining it in my previous blog post. One of the simplest ways to define it is to say it is the number of deaths that occurs due to lack of access to proper medical care.

For the first time in the US, it is not simply the unemployed or financially precarious who lack access to medical care: it also depends upon the fine print in your insurance policy. I believe this is why there are an alarming number of older people holding these pathetic signs about "grandma" dying because Obama's lying and the like. They utterly fail to see what is happening to younger generations in the US. Their plans were put into place in a period of relative prosperity when health insurance companies actually paid for healthcare with no lifetime limits and no strings attached.

This article, about a courageous doctor who has set up a chemotherapy unit in an abandoned warehouse facility in Nevada (for patients whose insurance fails to cover these costs) is a dramatic illustration of the phenomenon.

I know we are sick of hearing about death panels, but perhaps we should simply consider this term with a new target group in mind. It is not end of life decisions that are the crucial issue. People over sixty generally (though not all) have excellent healthcare plans. It is young to middle aged working adults who are now dying because they cannot get the medical care they need.

The assumption seems to be that if Republican Senators don't show complete and utter opposition to Health Care Reform as envisioned by the Obama Administration they will lose their seats in the next election.

My question is why is it certain that they will lose their seats if they vote for this Administration's plan?  Won't the Democratic voters in their districts like them for that?  Is it absolutely certain that they will be ousted without support from the GOP?  It seems to me if Republican Senators actually showed they were willing to work across party boundaries perhaps they would find new sources of votes?

Thoughts, suggestions, linkage for stuff to read?  Throw it on down!

(PS--On an aside, what is the difference between "Tags" and "Keywords?"  I find myself putting the same words in both...)

(PPS--Why does Movable Type destroy my formatting when posting, but not when previewing?)

I've taken a break from writing because I find myself too angry about the insanity of the Republican party, the cowardice of many Democrats, the corruptness of Max F*ckus and most of the Senate (Please, Al Franken - stir some shit up.  The Senate does not deserve nor should they receive any level of cordiality, politeness or respect).  

But I'm still too angry to write about that - as I'd probably get kicked off for saying something objectionable.  So it comes as a total surprise that I decide to write about an evangelical congregation.  Normally, I tend to be extremely critical of Christianity.  BUT - there are times when the church gets it exactly right.  And this time, getting it right means facing an extreme backlash and the possibility of the loss of membership and in turn revenue. 

As you may or may not know, members of the nation's largest Lutheran denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America made the brave decision to lift a ban prohibiting sexually active gays and lesbians from serving as ministers.  Now, gays and lesbians who are in committed relationships will be allowed to serve as clergy.  In my opinion - this is huge.    As I said, there are those who are even now considering leaving the denomination or who are trying to funnel donations to more conservative congregations who refuse to accept this courageous decision.  

I believe eventually this will be seen as the correct decision, and I can only hope that more denominations will follow suit.  I sent a letter of support to the email address listed (copy below) and I encourage you to do the same.

I was recently asked the question whether conservative Christians had the right to support anti gay marriage initiatives based on their religious convictions.   I said they had the right just as long as they would just as vocally support anti-miscegenation laws today since there is literally no difference.  But then I realized just how many might just take me up on the offer - and I revised my answer to a simple "NO!".  I don't have a stake in this fight - as I'm a happily married heterosexual man.  I just have no doubt that our gay friends, neighbors, brothers, sisters, and now preachers didn't choose to be gay, any more than Carrie Prejean didn't choose to be an ignorant fool.  Oh - wait.......

Letter to info@elca (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) follows:

GOD BLESS YOU!!!
I start by letting you know that I'm an atheist and have always been the first to challenge the various faiths when I thought they made poor decisions.  Needless to say - I challenged often.  I'm also a happily married heterosexual man - so I don't have any personal interest in this decision other than what I believe is just and right.
But from time to time, a particular faith makes a decision or takes a stand on a difficult issue even in the face of criticism from within their own denomination.   
Your decision to allow committed loving gay couples who are sexually active to serve as clergy is one of the finest examples of a church actually asking WWJD - and then actually having the courage to following through with it.  
I believe there will be a backlash which will initially reduce your membership, and there may be times when you ask if you've made the right decision.  I can only hope that you can stay the course and eventually others will follow.   This is a civil rights issue - and a statement that people don't choose sexuality any more than they choose their race.
In the last eight years, the move toward a more conservative literal interpretation of the bible and the outspoken members of the "religious right" have made me even more certain in my own views.  They have given me ammunition and a desire to fight for what I believe in.  I know I am not alone, as can be seen by the highly successful books by atheist authors Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens to name a few.   If the goal was to convert the unconvinced, the skeptical or even the fervent non-believer, most churches did just the opposite.
I can guarantee you that this decision will bring many people to your congregation who are just as tired as I am of hypocrisy preached by many evangelical church leaders and their membership.  You may even win over a few of those who were previously disgusted with what they saw as the mistreatment of our brothers and sisters of society - just because they were born different.  
So - I will reiterate my original statement.  From the bottom of my heart - GOD BLESS YOU!

  梦里甜到心里的幸福
    梦醒刺骨袭来的孤独
只因为，爱太美
诗一样，梦一般
 
不让梦里的花
在现实中凋零
 
不让梦里的幸福
变成现实的

We were probably wrong to believe that he was a revolutionary candidate. But after 8 years of Bush who could blame us?

Obama ran as a centrist candidate with a radical message. His Healthcare plan even then was not what most Progressives would have agreed with. Single-Payer it definitely wasn't. His economic plan was a wishy-washy amalgam of clean energy/regulating Wall Street/Re-negotiating NAFTA. After the debacle of the subprime mortgage meltdon, a proper economic plan would have involved a revamping of the system, a requirement to institute stringent regulations and an elimination of a "too big to fail" status. But again Progressives bought it because the alternative was too dreadly to even contemplate and they campaigned for the Land of Lincolner.

Now after over 6 months in power, after the novelty has worn off, after months of "Yes We Can!" should have become "Yes Let's Do It!", we all realize that the person that we supported is really a centrist who plays a Progressive on TV.

Barack Obama is a middle-of-the-road, serial compromiser President. He will probably remain that way for the remainder of his term unless he is forced to become something else. And so since he's been in power, he's enacted middle-of-the-road compromising policies:

1- Bailout of the banks when the banking system as it was shaped with its reward for speculation was the cause of the crisis

2-A continuation of the US presence in afghanistan that is less and less justifiable.

3-Indefinite detention of some Guantanamo prisoners

4-Bagram as the new Guantanamo

4-Israel can do no wrong even if in speeches there is some scolding

5-Now, a poorly presented, badly worded and overall incoherent healthcare policy that keeps the basic problem in place: the profit motive. 

Nobody should have to make a profit from the illness of others. Healthcare is not a product like Nike tee-shirts or Snickers chocolate bars and sick people are not mere consumers. This is precisely why most industrialized nations have single-payer systems or some highly regulated private system (Switzerland for instance). There is a recognition of the fact that every citizen is entitled to decent heathcare irrespective of their financial worth. There is also a recognition of the fact that we cannot pretend to be "buying a healthcare product" when we are in the dizzying, worried, anxious, scared state most people are in when they walk into a hospital. The profit motive is the elephant in the room of the healthcare debate.  But Senate and congressional Democrats, many of the ones (like Henry Waxman) who believe in single-payer, say they don't have the votes to pass single-payer so they took it off the table. They're not even sure they have the votes to pass a bill with the Public Option. "Then get the votes!", one is almost tempted to shout. What happened to fighting for what is right? Who said "Change we can believe in" was easy? Why vote for officials who only settle for the possible and never dare to even entertain a belief in what at first glance appears impossible? What happened to the America that saw a shining Republic through the barrel of an 18th century English cannon? what happened to the courage that saw the Voting Rights Acts through the racist eyes of a Ku Klux Klan hood? What about the 40-hour work week? universal suffrage? None of these things seemed possible at first. The congressmen, senators and citizens of those days didn't have the votes either. But they fought for the votes. They lobbied. They bargained. They argued. They petitioned. Many died. What happened to that spirit?

"Yes We Can!" wasn't just a campaign slogan.

Even though I realize this is going to disappear off the blog roll before sunrise because I don't know how to game the system, I'm gonna put it up anyhow.

Apparently, the townhall meeting in Standish, MI about the transferring of Gitmo detainees to a soon-to-be-closed facility there garnered some high profile attention (WaPo, ABC World News Tonight, Fox News) and I am going to borrow heavily from the write-up in the Washington Post.  Well, maybe I won't borrow heavily, but instead will suggest reading the article itself.  It's good and pretty thorough.

After sifting through the interwebs for a good part of the day, it looks like my suspicion about this meeting being more about politics than resolving genuine concerns of the locals wasn't too far off the mark. As for the fear-mongering I mentioned at the bottom of my previous post,  below are some examples of what you would have been treated to had you been in attendance.

First of all, the meeting was arranged by a man named Dave Munson with assistance from a group called ACT! for America.  Loonwatch.com (hahaha...loonwatch...hahahaha  That name tickles me.) Anyway, they have some fun with 'em here. You can read from Dave Munson himself here.

The panel of invited speakers included:

Pete Hoekstra --  Link here. (Oh, yeah...he's got it all over his little dot gov page already.)

Debra Burlingame -- founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America  
Her money quote:

"These detainees aren't like ordinary criminals. Those hardened criminals [in the Standish prison] do not have global jihadi networks," said Burlingame, whose brother was a pilot on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. She predicted that detainees would assault and throw bodily fluids at guards, plan attacks on tourists and attract suicide bombers to local gatherings. "What you do here, make no mistake, they are watching in Washington," Burlingame said. "And if we can kill it here, maybe we can kill it everywhere and keep Guantanamo open." 

(Geeze, and I thought I was a gasbag.)

David Littman -- Mackinaw Center for Public Policy  ( This is a Libertarian think tank and will most likely be bankrolling Hoekstra's bid for Governor as they did for the last Republican candidate, Dick DeVos. who is now on their board.)  Apparently, he didn't say much.  Then again, he doesn't have to...he's the money man.  Maybe he let that do the talkin' for him.

Tom Kerrins -- Michigan Corrections Organization (and probably the only one not there for a photo op)  But, he did get off a fabulous scare-em-while-you-got-em quote:

"They [the Gitmo detainees] are enemy combatants," said Tom Kerrins, chief steward for the union representing prison workers at Standish Maximum Correctional Facility. "They want to kill you, they want to kill me, they want to kill our families."

(So, the prison workers do have union representation, but if I was this Kerrins fella, I'd be working harder to find retraining for the guards able to meet federal requirements and seeing where I could put the ones that don't back into the system instead of scaring the shit out of citizens at the meeting.  But then, that's just me.)

Jim Barcia -- Michigan state Sen.(D-Bay City)  (At least he's from the area.) (And sane.)  Finally, Barcia gives the quote that totally grinds my ass, not because of who said it, but because once again, the loudmouth yellers that deny everyone's right to know at these townhall meetings have snuffed out the other voices that should be able to present their views also.

Barcia said federal officials who toured the prison Aug. 13 indicated they would not send detainees to Standish in the face of intense local opposition. He said legislators and locals who are open to the idea skipped the town hall because "they probably thought they'd be subject to the same behavior we've seen at many town hall meetings about health-care reform."

"they probably thought they'd be subject to the same behavior we've seen at many town hall meetings about health-care reform"

Doesn't that just piss you off? 
It did me.
More to come cuz I ain't done yet.
I want to address the genuine concerns of the locals, pro and con, without them having been whipped up by the politicians and other fear mongers.  The real people.  Might take a day or two.  Maybe three.

 

Mousavi says government agents raped detainees

Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut

He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.

Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran's ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.


The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.

"We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Syria," retired Navy Admiral James "Ace" Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.

"The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a 'spectacular action' against the Marines," said Lyons.

"He was prime minister," Lyons said of Mousavi, "so he didn't get down to the details at the lowest levels. "But he was in a principal position and had to be aware of what was going on."

Lyons, sometimes called "the father" of the Navy SEALs' Red Cell counter-terror unit, also fingered Mousavi for the 1988 truck bombing of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Center in Naples, Italy, that killed five persons, including the first Navy woman to die in a terrorist attack.

Bob Baer agrees that Mousawi, who has been celebrated in the West for sparking street demonstrations against the Teheran regime since he lost the elections, was directing the overall 1980s terror campaign.

But Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer whose exploits were dramatized in the George Clooney movie "Syriana," places Mousavi even closer to the Beirut bombings.

"He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah," who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was "the man largely held responsible for both attacks," Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.

"When Mousavi was Prime Minister, he oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq," Baer continued.


"This was the heyday of [Ayatollah] Khomeini's theocratic vision, when Iran thought it really could export its revolution across the Middle East, providing money and arms to anyone who claimed he could upend the old order."
Baer added: "Mousavi was not only swept up into this delusion but also actively pursued it."

Retired Adm. Lyons maintained that he could have destroyed the terrorists at a hideout U.S. intelligence had pinpointed, but he was outmaneuvered by others in the cabinet of President Ronald Reagan.

"I was going to take them apart," Lyons said, "but the secretary of defense," Caspar Weinberger, "sabotaged it."

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-i n-iranian.html

...............................................................................................................

REVOLUTIONARY FLOWERPOT SOCIETY

Mir-Hossein Mousavi's Iran/Contra Connection?

They are all good friends and associates of Manuchehr Ghorbanifar (an Iranian arms merchant, an alleged MOSSAD double agent, and a key figure in the Iran/Contra Affair, the arms-for-hostages deals between Iran and the Reagan administration). In one or two, at most three, degrees of separation, these people hung out in the same circles and very likely drank to the same toasts.

You can find all kinds of trivia about Ghorbanifar in the Walsh Report on the Iran/Contra affair. In Chapter 8, for example, we learn:

    "Ghorbanifar, an Iranian exile and former CIA informant who had been discredited by the agency as a fabricator, was a driving force behind these proposals [for arms-for-hostages deal];" or, "Ghorbanifar, as broker for Iran, borrowed funds for the weapons payments from Khashoggi, who loaned millions of dollars to Ghorbanifar in "bridge financing'" for the deals. Ghorbanifar repaid Khashoggi with a 20 percent commission after being paid by the Iranians," (see: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_08.htm).

Here is a bit from an article by Time magazine that shows Ghorbanifar's circle of associates; it is from a January 1987 cover story (The Murky World of Weapons Dealers; January 19, 1987):

    "By [Ghorbanifar's] own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government. Some U.S. officials who have dealt with Ghorbanifar praise him highly. Says Michael Ledeen, adviser to the Pentagon on counterterrorism: "[Ghorbanifar] is one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." Others call him a liar who, as one puts it, could not tell the truth about the clothes he is wearing," (emphasis added).

This second bit is from Chapter 1 of Walsh Iran/Contra Report: (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_01.htm)

    "On or about November 25, 1985, Ledeen received a frantic phone call from Ghorbanifar, asking him to relay a message from [Mir-Hossein Mousavi] the prime minister of Iran to President Reagan regarding the shipment of the wrong type of HAWKs. Ledeen said the message essentially was "we've been holding up our part of the bargain, and here you people are now cheating us and tricking us and deceiving us and you had better correct this situation right away.''
    [...]
    "In early May, North and CIA annuitant George Cave met in London with Ghorbanifar and Nir, where the groundwork finally was laid for a meeting between McFarlane and high-level Iranian officials, as well as financial arrangements for the arms deal. Among the officials Ghorbanifar said would meet with an American delegation were the president and prime minister [Mousavi] of Iran and the speaker of the Iranian parliament," (emphasis added).

And to remind how Michael Ledeen became involved in the Iran/Contra affair in 1985, here is a bit from Chapter 15 of Walsh Report (http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_15.htm):

    "[McFarlane] authorized Michael A. Ledeen, a part-time NSC consultant on anti-terrorism, to ask Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to check on a report that the Israelis had access to good sources on Iran. By early August 1985, Ledeen's talks had led to a direct approach by Israeli officials to McFarlane, to obtain President Reagan's approval to ship U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages in Beirut. McFarlane said he briefed the President, Regan, Shultz, Weinberger, Casey and perhaps the Vice President about the proposal in July and August 1985.40 McFarlane said that Casey recommended that Congress not be informed of the arms sales."

There you have it. Now, I'm no investigative journalist, so I'll leave it to the professionals to dig deeper into this.

But, I do have to wonder aloud: Seeing how we cannot ignore his 'neo-con' credentials and that Michael Ledeen maintained his very good relations with Ghorbanifar, (who at least used to be) a good friend of Mir-Hossein Mousavi (the 'candidate of change' in the Iranian presidential elections); and given the support that Mousavi's candidacy has been receiving from the American 'moderates', maybe this kind of 'change' is the 'regime change' the Americans have had in mind for Iran?


werkshop said...

    I have felt alone on this too, but i know I'm not alone. This is another US backed Color Coup, and Mousavi is a stooge. I'm sure of it. And I too am furious with the left for not seeing both the classism of this whole fiasco, and the way people's genuine desires for freedom are being used and channeled into something very dark.
...................................................................................................................

A Tense Calm on Streets of Tehran

Iranian State Media Intensify Criticism of Mousavi, Protesters

By Thomas Erdbrink
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 22, 2009

TEHRAN, June 21 -- The Iranian government and opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi stepped up their war of words Sunday after at least 10 people were killed in clashes on Saturday, while an uneasy calm prevailed on the streets of Tehran on Sunday for the first time since Iran's worst political crisis in 30 years began a week ago.

Government media lashed out Sunday at Mousavi, suggesting that some of his actions were illegal and blaming "terrorists" for Saturday's violence, in which at least 100 people were injured. The semiofficial Fars News Agency, which has strong ties to the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, quoted a law professor at Tehran University as saying that Mousavi's actions were criminal.

"Through uncivil and illegal means, he created an environment for unrest and hooliganism," Firouz Aslani told Fars News. "Contrary to his claims of lawfulness, he acted against the security of the nation and the interests of the system."

Some analysts in Tehran said those comments and others carried in the state-run news media questioning the legality of Mousavi's actions could be the government's way of preparing the ground for his arrest.
 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Profile: MirHossein Mousavi Iran's presidential challenger (telegraph.co.uk)
• Mousavi to Obama: You Insult Us (minx.cc)
• W. David Stephenson: New Anti-Terror Weapons: You, Me, iPhone & Twitter (huffingtonpost.com)
• Paul Rahe: Iran's trajectory (powerlineblog.com)
• Robert Baer: Don't Forget Mousavi's Bloody Past (time.com)
• Iran's Revolutionary Road: Beware the Echo Chamber (lailalalami.com)
• Congress Seeks More Answers From CIA (abcnews.go.com)
• Which State Security Branch Rules Tehran's Streets? (time.com)

I'm still interested in finding a name for the Democrats who hang out on the left side of the party, swimming in the waters between Blue and Green, as it were. "Progressive" seems inappropriate because it's the name of an insurance company, and besides it's not that catchy.

Submit your suggestions as comments. Thanks!

Ah, just enough sarcasm and paranoia to start with?  Really, what is a liberal and what is a conservative these days?  Can't we be both?  It would seem that too often a person's philosophical package has to comply with either camp or you are considered damaged.  I land fiscally conservative most of the time, but care not to tell my fellow man (or woman) how they should live if they ain't hurtin anybody, accept maybe themselves.  Their choice.  So I'm what? A Conservative?   It seems that a guy must be anti gun, pro IRS and pro BIG FEDGOV, maybe even pro- Federal Reserve to be thought a liberal these days.  It's not enough to be pro human rights, racially blind, sexually orientation blind, and anti-war to be a liberal these days.  I can't pass the whole test.

Thread starters:

I think the guys who brought loaded, exposed weapons to the Obama rallies hit a big nerve in the USA.  Scared the crap out of a lot of people.  Why? Because guns scare them and people who own guns scare them.   Go figure...........In 43 States, Thank God, the public is allowed to wear an openly displayed, loaded gun.  These aren't the people we should be afraid of. They are exercising their Rights.  It's the one's with concealed weapons and the heavily armed and officially sactioned by gov't that are always the ones who do damage.  It was purely symbolic anyway, so maybe we ought to look at what they are saying.  Is it so crazy to want to defend yourself with lethal force? No.  I don't carry a gun, but refuse to take that away from those who do so in a law abiding way. 
So, I's like to hear feedback on how we regain our lost freedoms and disarm ourselves as well.  That's not going to work out so well, I'm betting.

How about those who are vocal about their desire to see the IRS dismantled and a fair and Constitutional take it's place ?  Or those who oppose the Federal Reserve and wish to see a return to US Treasury control of the currency and banking ? Why are these just Conservative issues?

And how about Neo-Conservatives?  What are they?  Disingenuously calling themselves 'New" they seem to be all about war and conquest and the domination of the US Empire and unquestioned aid to their favorite ally, Israel.  OK, so slap me for saying something perhaps critical of Israel.  Can I be pro Jew and anti-Zionist?  Can I be not in favor of continued building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land and be a Liberal?

I don't want to be pigeon -holed.  I want to evaluate each issue and come to my own conclusions regardless of what camp I land in.  Don't you?

Let's kick these around for a while.

Here's the least surprising news of the week: Americans are souring on the Democratic Party. The wonder is that it's taken so long for public opinion to curdle. There's nothing agreeable about watching a determined attempt to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

It is an axiom of American politics that the Democratic Party will negotiate from a position of weakness and the Republican Party will proceed from strength. The number of seats they hold in Congress is irrelevant to this paradigm. The Republicans could be down to five senators and they would still charge into battle. And the Democrats would, from the outset, assume that the Republicans are right (and mainstream) and that since their own position is too extreme they must concede as soon as possible to remain politically viable. There is no Republican talking point that won't scare the bejesus out of the Democratic Party. - Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post

_________________________________________________________

The above-quoted pieces aren't necessarily eye-openers. They're not saying anything we haven't all been talking about for months now. They're just saying it better. In fact, dazzlingly better. In fact, they're making so much sense I'm getting ready for the final smackdown. I've been patient long enough.

This year marks my 50th Anniversary as a card carrying Democrat. Long enough so that they're almost like family to me, and as families go, we've had our ups and downs. But it's clear to me, finally, that I've been far more loyal to them than they've been to me.

All I've ever asked of them is that they do the right thing. It doesn't take a decade's worth of committee meetings and forests full of red-taped paper to come up with a way to do the right thing. We need living-wage jobs. We need affordable health care. We need clean air, clean water and a leaning toward green. We need protection from the callous, the cruel, and the crazies. It's not too much to ask of the Party of the People. (Think Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, John Conyers, Anthony Weiner, Russ Feingold. . .)

Still, I'm a charitable person. I'm willing to give them another chance. But I'm gonna need some help. So all of those interested in going the intervention route to save the Democratic Party leaders from themselves, holler "Aye"!

AYE!

Aye?

Waiting. . . .

Counting the minutes. . .

Gettin' hungry here. And lonely. . .

C'mon people. Remember how they used to be? Remember this?

"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one!
- Matt Santos, The West Wing

And this?

Democrats have changed America in simple basic ways in the past fifty years that have benefited everyone. Race has become less and less an issue in people's lives and racism has ceased to be socially acceptable anywhere.

Women have moved into every realm of society and this is everywhere accepted without much comment, Equal opportunity in education, employment, housing. There is general agreement on the right to a dignified old age, guaranteed by the state. Democrats led the way in bringing these things about. It's one thing to get into power and do favors for your friends; it's quite another to touch the conscience of a nation. The last Republican to do that was Teddy Roosevelt.

and:
The fear of catastrophe could chill the soul but the social compact assures you that if the wasps come after you, if gruesome disease strikes down your child, if you find yourself hopelessly lost, incapable, drowning in despair, running through the rye toward the cliff, then the rest of us will catch you and tend to you and not only your friends but We the People in the form of public servants.
- Garrison Keillor, "Homegrown Democrat" 2004

And especially this:

The economic plank of this platform on its face concerns only material things, but it is also a moral issue that I raise tonight. It has taken many forms over many years. In this campaign and in this country that we seek to lead, the challenge in 1980 is to give our voice and our vote for these fundamental democratic principles.

Let us pledge that we will never misuse unemployment, high interest rates, and human misery as false weapons against inflation.

Let us pledge that employment will be the first priority of our economic policy.

Let us pledge that there will be security for all those who are now at work, and let us pledge that there will be jobs for all who are out of work; and we will not compromise on the issues of jobs.

These are not simplistic pledges. Simply put, they are the heart of our tradition, and they have been the soul of our Party across the generations. It is the glory and the greatness of our tradition to speak for those who have no voice, to remember those who are forgotten, to respond to the frustrations and fulfill the aspirations of all Americans seeking a better life in a better land.

We dare not forsake that tradition. We cannot let the great purposes of the Democratic Party become the bygone passages of history.

- Ted Kennedy, 1980 Democratic Convention,

We don't need a new party. We already have one of the historically great ones. This may cause some heads to snap, but we were the greatest when we were the most liberal. We lost whatever moral standing we had when we shut the door on being our brother's keeper and got in bed instead with the powermongers who would just as soon screw us as look at us.

That is not who we are. I remember a certain charismatic but maddeningly flawed presidential candidate saying over and over, "We're better than that". And for a while it looked like he was right. After eight years of cowardice that smelled a lot like treachery, we were on the way to Doing the Right Thing.

The candidate who became president sounded like an old Democrat, too, and we screamed with joy when the votes were in and our man won. Politics As Usual went out the window, and--surprise!--flew right back in again.

After more than eight years of cowardice/treachery, they owe us. Millions of us are hurting because of their actions, or inaction. They have a lot of making up to do, a lot of promises to keep, yet to watch them these days you would think that winning elections was all there was to it.

Wrong.

You have a job to do, you masters of the universe, you servants of the people. We made you--we can break you. So listen up:

We need cheap equitable health care without the usual looting by the insurance pirates. Take care of it.

We need a jobs program like the WPA/CCC. Take care of it.

We need to send a Dear John letter to Republican Fat-Cat-enabling naysayers. Take care of it.

We need to get back to making products instead of creating serfs. Take care of it.

And you need to stop pretending that Business As Usual is going to save us. It's not.

And another thing: The majority of us don't run with the Blue Dogs. The Blue Dogs are dogs. Let them eat scraps.

Time's up. You're dismissed. Now get to work.

Ramona

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here)

I mean, seriously...I've been saying this ever since Obama's numbers started to drop, about three weeks ago or so.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that the folks that will say they disapprove of the job Obama's doing that are on the right, that are Republicans, has no room for growth. They ALL hate him. We get plenty of evidence of that every single day and night from FOX News. So the only way Obama's numbers were EVER going to drop was if he disappointed his base.

I'm not satisfied with the job Obama is doing. Far too many issues of even greater importance than just health care or the economy are going down the wrong path. So in all conscience, I can't say I approve of the job he's doing as President--for a POLL.

But don't forget: No matter what a poll says, no matter what the question is or how it's answered, how skewed, how they play with it, Obama will be re-elected as our next President.

Who do the Republicans have to offer...? Not a goddamned fucking thing except the lies they just keep right on believing. And none of their candidates will be nominated unless they preach those lies loud and clear for at least 18 months ahead of the election.

No more Republican Presidents for a long, long time. And this poll is the most illuminating bit of information I've heard all summer long...

...according to their own definition of 'liberal'.

I wrote this blog just because Jon Stewart does such an excellent job in making the case for this here (after the Barney Frank snaps) by demonstrating how they are 'being' liberals according to the way 'they' have defined liberal.

I do not believe that they qualify as liberal or conservative but are somewhere more in the insane cult category along with the pseudo-christian self proclaimed 'mafia' 'The Family'.

But as you know they have always had a very liberal policy when it comes to:

Lies, Distortions, Inciting Violence in favor of their policies, Manipulation of facts, video, and the viewing public, etc.

And they liberally apply this policy:

When we do it and/or it serves our 'agenda', it is patriotic, good, and we are always right.

When you do it, it is unpatriotic, socialist, fascist (and any other 'ist' that might scare or shock viewers) and you are always wrong. 

Basically "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" reserves the right to do, say, or be anything no matter how untrue, non factual, unethical, and dangerous to and for the public because like many politicians they hold themselvs as elite, aristocracy, and above the law. 

(I mean who's going to sue Murdoch, right?) 

And everyone who is not "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" and does not agree with or support their political or ideological goals is 'the rest of you people out there who are just ignorant and don't really matter' or as Bill O'Reilly would say 'loons':)

The right has been winning the health care reform debate through their use of fear.

It's time to use it right back.

Insurance costs going through the roof as the industry that profits on people's ill health prospers.

More people losing their jobs and homes because of it.

The economic hole deepens worse than before.

All thanks to you.

From Larry Flint ? Oh you betch ya.

The problem with bankers is longstanding. Here's
what one of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson,
had to say about them:

    "If the American people ever allow private
banks to control the issuance of their currency,
first by inflation, and then by deflation, the
banks and the corporations that will grow up around
them will deprive the people of all property until
their children wake up homeless on the continent
their father's conquered."


We all know that the first American Revolution
officially began in 1776, with the Declaration of
Independence. Less well known is that the single
strongest motivating factor for revolution was the
colonists' attempt to free themselves from the Bank
of England. But how many of you know about the
second revolution, referred to by historians as
Shays' Rebellion? It took place in 1786-87, and
once again the banks were the cause. This time they
were putting the screws to America's farmers.

Daniel Shays was a farmer in western Massachusetts.
Like many other farmers of the day, he was being
driven into bankruptcy by the banks' predatory
lending practices. (Sound familiar?) Rallying other
farmers to his side, Shays led his rebels in an
attack on the courts and the local armory. The
rebellion itself failed, but a message had been
sent: The bankers (and the politicians who
supported them) ultimately backed off. As Thomas
Jefferson famously quipped in regard to the
insurrection: "A little rebellion now and then is a
good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed
from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants."

Perhaps it's time to consider that option once
again.

To which I say he maybe right. Once again the American
people are being fleeced in a shell game by both parties -
pawns of Wall Street and the elite.

C

I didn't see anyone else from TPM at the H-CAN rally June 25th in Washington. I did see lots of union people, but turnout still wasn't over 7,000, tops.

Even so, I didn't mind being selected to attend Healthcare Now!'s rally in DC in July at the expense of many people here at TPM. Turnout was about 300.

But I'm damn sure not attending the "March on Washington" that Robert Reich has proposed. No more fizzle-fests for me, thanks.

So Reich drops an offhand suggestion and people jump, huh? Well, no, not that many people. Go to Daily Kos and see that four days later, only a few hundred have declared some intention to go. Not 1,200 yet say they'll attend any rally anywhere on that date. Check out the vote tally for yourself.

Reich says he's willing to help but not organize. Again, huh? What else is needed, Robert, if not organization? Leadership, maybe? So three days after you toss out the idea, where's your public follow-up?

The rallies for heath care reform held earlier this year took months to plan and still produced dismal results, with the vast majority of those attending H-CAN's rally bused in by labor unions. But there won't be so many colorful shirts at Bob Reich's march on Washington. Because the unions are holding their annual conventions in Pittsburgh, Pa., starting that weekend, Sept. 13.

Who will foot the bill for a stage and audio equipment, buses to carry people, staff to make arrangements, more staff to arrange for lodging and travel, press kits, lobbying packets, refreshments, port-a-johns, etc? We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, minimum -- more likely millions in expenses for organizers alone. And the total cost for even 100,000 people could top $100 million in out-of-pocket expenses.

Will liberals show up in droves -- as they haven't yet -- to fill the void of absent union members and do better than the existing activist groups?

Convince me. I'm betting the few hundred lemmings who show up will feel as disappointed as I do after having walked off the cliff twice this year.

I dare you to take my bet.

Consensus is forming that Barack Obama and the Democrats cannot govern effectively.

Some, like Joe Klein, have hinted that this might be due to Obama's attempt to work with the Republicans being misguided because the GOP is now a "party of nihilists."  Others, like Josh Marshall on TPM, seem to lay much of the blame at the feet of the "astroturf" protests at town halls and the like.  Still others think that it is a failure of rhetoric: if only Obama and the Dems had controlled the message more, maybe with some snappy commercials and smart speeches, this summertime debacle would not be unfolding before us.

These are all contributing factors.  But, there is one more factor that people don't talk about much: Obama just doesn't seem to have many real values to speak of.  Obama, like Bill Clinton, is a creature of soft liberal politics and so has shed his deepest commitments.  Obama, in short, doesn't seem to stand for anything and so the GOP is having no problem making him fall.

We heard this line during the campaign: Obama's all talk, but what does he really believe?  I often retorted: he was against the war when it was unpopular to be against the war, he's committed to health care for all, he will close the detention center at Guantanamo.

Oh well.  1-ish out 3 ain't bad, I guess.

A person is defined by his or her values.  As what we value change, so do we.  Consequently, it is not uncommon to say of someone whose values have radically shifted, "He's just not the same person anymore."  

In this way our values non-accidentally determine the boundaries of our identities.  As a result, we often take the measure of a person by her values.  Someone having deeply felt convictions is therefore neither odd nor extreme. The convictions someone has just are what make that person the person she is, and without those convictions she would either be a different person or not even a person at all - she'd just be some sort of vegetable.  

Of course, some who become one-dimensional or overly dogmatic in their values start to seem alien to us and we naturally do not trust such persons.  Similarly, the person who has no clear values to speak of and who changes her values with limited prompting seems almost spectral: we cannot quite tell where they are, who they are, or even what they are.  We naturally do not trust that person either.

Obama is increasingly falling into this second category.  When he became president, he simply stopped speaking the way people who have values speak.  He no longer will come out and say that it is a moral imperative that we close down Guantanamo now; that it is a moral imperative that we end the war in Iraq; that it is a moral imperative that we have health care reform that includes a public option. Instead, he makes calculated policy speeches. When pushed, he _says_ that he cares about this or that.  But, he rarely says in plain language and unprompted by a question: This is what matters to me, I believe it is the right thing to do, and I believe it because it is what my values tell me we must do.

Because this is politics, people understand that we must compromise and that individuals are forced to compromise some of their values for the sake of maintaining a healthy democracy.  

On the other hand, no one trusts someone - and no one wants to, or even can, compromise with anyone who doesn't seem to stand for anything.  In such cases, the thing to do is to assume that the other person is either a pushover or dangerous and the rational response might seem to be aggressively pursuing your own interests regardless of the other person's overtures.

In short, we have a president and a party that seems unwilling to act out of any real conviction.  They don't stand for anything.  And, that's why they are falling out of power and control.  

Doesn't that sound like a headline from a bygone era? Nixon and his Attorney-General John Mitchell, for example? Bush and Ashcroft?

But it's President Barack Obama and his Attorney-General Eric Holder who have defied the United States Civil Rights Commission and dropped all charges against the defendants in an outstandingly blatant case of voter intimidation in Philadelphia in 2008.

This was Black Panthers in paramilitary regalia stationed in front of a polling place, one of them brandishing a night-stick and shouting "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!" and sharing other similarly edifying information with potential voters. Witnesses included a civil-rights lawyer and publisher of the Village Voice, which isn't exactly a right-wing rag.

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, (Village Voice publisher, Bartle Bull) submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.

When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years--action that's already illegal under existing law.

Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli--a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers--that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."

That's an unusually long quote from the Wall Street Journal, but you don't have to take their word for it...

Check out the videos here and here...