TPMCafe
« September 6, 2009 - September 12, 2009 | Home | September 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009 »

Week of September 13, 2009 - September 19, 2009

Teabaggers turn violent; Joe the Plumber-Contractor in a fight?


What we know for sure is that the non-grassroots Tea Party movement descended upon Milwaukee, Wisconsin today and held a rally at a public lakefront park. (It could very well have been one that the city's famous socialist government created.) Among the featured speakers: Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who is currently running for Wisconsin governor on the Republican ticket; Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is a rabid right-wing man but runs as a Democrat to fool voters (which sadly works); and Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Contractor Plumber.

Apparently a man provoked some of the teabaggers, eventually causing a large group of them -- incluing Joe the Unlicensed Plumber -- to chase him. What we know for sure is that he was beaten, and that Joe the Unlicensed Plumber may have taken a swing at him. Blogger Renee Crawford saw what happened and provides a detailed report. She writes:

"Then Joe the Plummer joined the tussle. I kid you not. I have no idea his role in it, just that he was IN THE MIDDLE of the crowd. The sheriffs get there, I turn to look at Joe the Plummer and the next thing I know the guy being assaulted by the crowd is bloody on the ground under the knee of two sheriffs and being cuffed. His face was bloody, there was something about a broken camera and I became scared of the crowd who were cheering and congratulating the sheriffs for "doing a great job"...

We will have to wait until the sheriff's report comes out tomorrow. I can't help but wonder if our DINO right-wing sheriff will attempt to tamper with the report, or prevent Joe the Contractor Plumber from being listed as an assailant -- if he indeed was in on it. I wasn't there, so I just don't know.

Change, Our Way.


We, the people, can bitch, moan and complain all we want and it will not make one penny's difference. Look anywhere on the web and you'll find an over abundance of sites that do nothing but reveal right wing lies and treachery. Go to the comments section of those sites and there is no shortage of rage, frustration, expressions of betrayal by the Obama Administration, and rightly so. We share our heartfelt feelings with each other day and night. On and on. If you want to know how progressives and liberals (I still can't figure out the difference between these two) really feel about the current environment just find the comments section on any liberal blog. Recently, you will also find a curious uptick in right wing, conservative, extremist viewpoints mixed in as well.

Those are devilishly worded in such a way as to infuriate, divide and muddle the debate going on at the moment, with disappointing success. Personally I feel simply ignoring those obvious plants rather than replying with a off topic angry rebuttal would be very effective at dwindling their increasing numbers. I took notice on several of the comment sections of liberal blogs and articles about the right wing orchestrated Van Jones non-flap. I found that the infiltration of what I call "Planted Comments" almost equaled comments made by people expressing thoughtful views, pro and con, but none the less attempted to be constructive. Every time a "planted" comment would appear, it was replied to by infuriated liberals so often it took away from any semblance of the intended debate, over and over again. Objective achieved.

But more to the point, all this is occurring amongst ourselves. The true ferocity of liberal outrage goes no further than the comments section and maybe a few hundred emails from the more activist of us to congresspersons, advertisers, etc.

It's classic "Choir singing to the Choir" along with the arguably minimal effect of those emails. The truth in the basis of our outrage does not go out to the millions of ordinary people we want to think we are reaching. Hoping that the simple logic and rationale of our argument will have an positive impact against the onslaught of the "Twilight Zone" trash being widely spoken, written and broadcast by an unfair, dishonest mainstream media. You know, the media that's actually consumed and believed by the unintellectual, incurious masses. The truth of the matter is the liberal/progressive argument has almost no effect and the obvious reason is no one knows anything about our side of the debate, at least not any true or accurate presentation.

Until we figure out a way to weasel in on the locked and blocked public discourse that is now dominated completely by deranged talkshow hosts, lying corrupt politicians and compliant interviewers, we will get nowhere with a progressive agenda. Nothing will be "changed." And finally we will loose our best opportunity to restore America to sanity, fairness and actual accountability for those that would destroy everything and anything to advance their narrow corporate and political playbook. A playbook that doesn't happen to include anything but gross enrichment at the people's expense and one-sided power grabs. A playbook that makes further erosion of the democratic process necessary to succeed. Civil liberties have also proven to be a petty obstacle to obliterate.

Our voice is missing as part of a fair and equal agreement. As part of the intended equation of factors involved in our democracy. As admirably, tirelessly and hard as Liberal/Progressive blogs and web sites try to initiate meaningful change and broadly effective differences in our crumbling existence, it's not enough to tilt the scales in favor of truth, honesty and a just and fair outcome. We have to do more to break the stranglehold on truth the titans of "The Mainstream Media" have stolen from America. And we must finally realize and accept the "Whatever it Takes" cornerstone attitude will work for the good guys as well. It seems to have come to that.

One more thought. We may be on our own in our efforts to enact and secure a different political discourse. A discourse not to simply to fulfill the wants and needs of the Progressive/Liberal movement. If it is honest, fair and has equal benefits for all Americans it will stand on it's own. As often stated by others, "Truth has a liberal bias."

I say 'On our own' because it seems to me the necessary push for meaningful change is not going to come from this administration despite the rhetoric, reassurances and past promises. Most of those promises have been broken or completely ignored. And the rhetoric is empty or lacking substance when applied. So it's proving to be a pretty sure bet the "Change We Can Believe In" is going to have to come from entirely within our ranks. The necessary legislation and true change of policy will have to be brought about by us being the "squeaky wheel" that gets the lubricant, so to speak. Without our loud and persistent pressure on the people that actually create the legislation, etc., nothing is going to get done. Our Senators and Representatives are going to have to feel real heat. We must assume, based on recent history, the Obama administration is disappointingly pliant. They seem to bend to the greatest amount of pressure. We must be this pressure. And it has to be more powerful than that being successfully applied by those we know in our hearts and thinking brains, is dead wrong.


Our "civil war" rages on and on and on ...


I have been reluctant to post these ideas though I have harbored them for some time.  Recent events have only confirmed their continued applicability, however, and a post yesterday on Truthout.com by Eric Boehlert, "A President Was Killed the Last Time Right-Wing Hatred Ran Wild Like This," prompted me to respond to Boehlert with the below thoughts, and to submit them for the consideration of this community.

Basically, I thanked Boehlert "for catching up."  The rest of my statement follows:

"I've watched people I thought I knew well, including Republicans of seemingly high intellect, buy into the radical insanity, fearing -- and this is a direct quote - 'the end of representative democracy under Obama.'  Making sweeping generalizations goes against everything I believe in, but the sheer amount and intensity of irrational behavior leads me to conclude there is a pathological level of paranoia among the right wing and a huge amount of racism and 'christianized' extremism.  This is a Deep South, Great Plains, High Rockies movement -- regions that are historically the least open, the least tolerant, and the most xenophobic in the country.  Make no mistake: This country's 'Civil War' started with the '3/5ths Rule' in the Constitution, became a shooting war in the 1860s (when the radical Right claimed another President), a covert war until the Civil Rights Act, and has continued today under the guise of neo-conservativism, for whose adherents Muslims, the Taliban, and Iranian 'insurgents' provided a useful proxy for unification through violence.  The deep red converts are scary and dangerous, and they are seducers of many people we all know and, in some cases, even love."

Whether witch doctor, Stalin, Hitler, secret Muslim, or any other ludicrous comparison the Right wants to launch, the opposition to President Obama has completely lost its moorings from any reasoned political or social theory.  Radical federalists, neo-imperialists, or simply the super-rich hoping to avoid a fair tax share are all among those who freely exploit the paranoid as muscle against social progress.  The health care "debate" only confirmed for me the lunacy of the "other side" and demonstrated the willingness of empowered interests, this time in the form of the insurance lobby, to leverage blind hatred for narrow, parochial purposes. 

What I once wanted to tell a former friend whom I have lost in the course of this debate, a Republican I once held in some esteem, is that the intensity of the opposition that he emphasized on our past discussions does not equate to validity.  It is my experience that the most intense "believers" in any line of thinking operate detached from all facts and rely exclusively on faith in a special, shared truth that unites them and their fellow believers no matter how destructive that belief may be to the common welfare.  It's not the product of rational thought, it is the behavior of a cult and it defies logical discourse.  This was most evident previously in the Evangelism that propelled Republicans to power in the 90s until recently despite the fact that the Republicans so ensconced demonstrated a level of avarice, mendacity and immorality more befitting decadent Rome than seats of American government.  Now, we see this cultism in a Fox-fueled radical right that would, indeed, cheer at the death of a President they hate unreasoningly even though his policies (continuing some of the policies of his Republican predecessor) saved the world from a devastating Second Great Depression and certain economic anarchy.  Go figure.

I was hopeful that policy successes under President Obama, the best leader for our times, would cement a pragmatic government under Progressives for the remainder of my life (who, after all would turn down affordable health care?!).  That outcome is now at great risk.  Progressives are going to have to mobilize and defend their recent gains until the radicals are finally forced into permanent minority status and a more rational opposition emerges.  Do they have the will when there is no grand, unifying crisis at hand, only a low-level counter-revolution driven by hate, shaped by lies and energized by unthinking fear?  Time will tell whether we will participate in the next great victory over the forces of repression in America, or suffer yet another reversal that further delays our emergence as a truly rational society. 

God Bless the United States of America.

 

42 States Lost Jobs --- Well Duh!?


WASHINGTON - Forty-two states lost jobs last month, up from 29 in July, with the biggest net payroll cuts coming in Texas, Michigan, Georgia and Ohio.

The Labor Department also reported Friday that 27 states saw their unemployment rates increase in August, and 14 states and Washington D.C., reported unemployment rates of 10 percent or above...

By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Christopher S. Rugaber, Ap Economics Writer


I'm sorry but I find it very hard to believe that in 8 states, not one person lost their job; not one?  Oh sure I understand the 'net loss' calculation; but did this headline really have to be said in this way, really?

Maybe I don't understand the way Washington does it counting but I'm pretty darn sure each and every state in our nation has lost at least one job for decades.

I think maybe the Associated Press by showing these words in this manner, in their headline, "42 STATES LOST JOBS LAST MONTH" is probably making some of their Republican friends pretty darn happy and may have been done to do just that.

Somebody with the know how needs to travel back in time and see first of all, during Bill Clinton's last term, just how many States DID NOT lose jobs over the same amount of time as being talked about here.  Was that ever put in writing by AP?  Then that same somebody needs to look at the years 2007 or 2008 and find out how many States LOST JOBS (I don't care if it's just one)  in the same amount of time.

It's only logical that States LOSE JOBS every month, even in a good economy.  To use these sort of headlines can mean AP had only one goal in mind -- scare the American people into believing the recession/depression is still here and they should continue to stop spending money. 

Be Scared, Be Very Scared!

John Kerry, Health Care Sellout #1



The staggering lack of democracy in the United States on economic issues, and in particular on health care, has created a situation in which almost no US senators favor Medicare for All despite likely majority support from the public.

The worst shills in the US Senate on this issue are not Republicans. In very red states like say Kansas, the population almost certainly does not favor Medicare for All. Orrin Hatch may oppose single payer, but at least he can rightly claim that his position is the one held by his constituents. So the prize for the most elitist senators here must go to the blue states.

Who is the worst sellout of the Senate? It may well be John Kerry, the lone remaining senator from the bluest state in the Union, Massachusetts. Why Kerry as opposed to competition like Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, you ask? After all, there are plenty of nauseating sellouts from very liberal states--how about Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, the bluest state in the Union second only to Massachusetts?

But John Kerry should know that just mandating private insurance in an employer based health care system does not reduce costs much. After all, his state enacted a mandate for health insurance three years ago and results are not exactly promising: premiums in the Bay State are now the highest in the country, with total cost growth outpacing the national average by 7% over six years. While "experts" from the insurance industry point to a lack of cost controls by the state as the reason for cost growth, serious health care economists know that employer based health insurance is inevitably wasteful.

Instead of proposing Medicare for All, which would replace the broken system, Kerry has stuck to incremental reforms. In a nod to the Dutch health care system he once pushed the idea of a "stop-loss pool," which means compensating insurance companies for high cost, catastrophic cases. This is actually a good idea, but it ignores that countries where this system works don't have employer based health insurance, and that moving to a single payer system would hence be far more effective. And lately it is not even clear that Kerry goes this far. The contrast to Senator Sanders in neighboring Vermont is like night and day.

Given Kerry's elite personal background it is hardly surprising that he is out of touch with the middle and working class. His extended family was heir to fabulous inherited wealth, with a great aunt paying for him to attend private schools in Europe and New England as a child. He spent his summers at the luxurious Forbes family estate and went on to attend Yale. Following a divorce from his first wife, as a senator he famously married Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz, heir to the vast fortune of her late husband John Heinz, and now possesses five homes including "a six-floor, $7 million townhome in Boston's Beacon Hill neighborhood, a $9 million ocean-front home on Nantucket, [and] a $5 million ski retreat in Idaho." His time in Vietnam aside, this is the life!

If you live in Massachusetts, be sure to phone and write a letter to John Kerry about S. 703. While his status as a member of the moneyed elite may make it easy to forget the concerns of ordinary people, we may yet be able to drum some sense into him. But in the more likely event that he continues to reject national health insurance, we will need a rerun of the 2008 primary challenge by Ed O'Reilly. O'Reilly did support Medicare for All and was a far better candidate for Massachusetts, including on issues like gay marriage which he supported unequivocally. O'Reilly lost apparently because he was outspent by an enormous amount. In any 2014 rerun, we need to change the script so that the better candidate wins.

Write to your congresspeople about HR 676, S. 703 and the Weiner and Kucinich amendments!

REAPING WHAT YOU SOW



This is supposedly the  basic nature of God's Justice:


GALATIANS 6: 7-9 (KJV) :


7: Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8: For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
9: And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.


rush limbaugh

Do we in fact reap what we sow?  I underline often that I am a member of the undeserving poor, I am. Some of us are just reaping what we have sewn.


But I am expanding the concept to national issues. Issues of the day:


On Friday night, "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace was a guest on Bill O'Reilly to complain about President Obama's decision to skip Fox News when he makes the rounds of the Sunday news programs to push health care reform.

Ironically, Wallace was the one to accuse the Obama administration of "childishness," saying: "They are the biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington."

Wallace expressed surprise that the administration chose a Spanish-language network ("Univision!") over Fox News and looked back fondly on his treatment by the Reagan administration.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/snubbed-by-obama-fox-news_n_292254.html

Sometimes I come across a line in the real world, sans any satire, that can make me grin ear to ear for a full day.  Chrissy mentions his 30 years in Washington and we are, of course, to assume 30 years of fine professional journalism. WIPE THAT FUCKING SMIRK OFF OF YOUR SISSY BOY'S FACE. Ha!!

Let's see, during the last full term of George W. Bush, how many appearances did he make on MSNBC? How many is that Chrissy you sissy? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

If a dog snarls at me and then snaps at me (I have not been bitten by a dog since I was four), I stay away from that dog. I do not hate the dog. I just do not spend a lot of time with it. If I see it walking down the street a keep a fair distance from it.

Here is a short run down of how Fox has treated its new Commander in Chief:

http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/fox-news-obama-is-an-angry-black-man-why-should-he-go-on-the-oreilly-show/

But seriously folks. I mean Fox has organized two teabagging get to gethers, openly called My President a Muslim fascist, Black Racist, Communist, Socialist, Liar, .....

I guess taking Univision over Fox is a pretty good idea. Especially with the numbers Obama reaps in the Hispanic Community. 

And does anyone think that Univision is going to give President Obama a pass?

Does anyone believe that monkey face Gregory is going to pitch soft balls?

Do you think staphanpoopalos us going to just joke around tomorrow?

But there are other applications of the sense contained in the quote from Galatians:

LIMBAUGH: My cat -- here's how you can get fooled. My cat comes to me when she wants to be fed. I have learned this. I accept it for what it is. Many people in my position would think my cat's coming to me because she loves me. Well, she likes me, and she is attached, but she comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her -- guess what -- she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat's taught me more about women, than anything my whole life. But we put voices in their mouths.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200612010005


Here are just some snippets from rush's show that kind of define his attitude toward the better sex:

- "He's trying to figure out how he can get involved in the deal down there at Duke where the lacrosse team...supposedly, you know, raped, some, uh, hos." [3/31/06]

- "You know, there's a crisis of young man-boy education in the schools. And they did this on purpose, to eliminate male competition in the work force. This is part of feminazi grand plan." [5/21/08]

- "Classic example of the castrati, the new castrati. Jack Carter is -- has been castrated by the feminization of this culture since he grew up." [2/21/06]

- "I just heard Erin Burnett sounding a little wifey. ... Well [she was] whining." [10/23/07]

I do not need more documentation here for this asshat. I mean he was crying that women just do not seem to like him. The king of the Feminazi criers, wonders why women despise him. There is hope here for all of us really. A greater percentage of white women voted for Obama than white men.

So far of course neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney or Rummy have reaped what they have sown.

We shall see.


Michelle Obama is empathetic, eloquent and profound, and might succeed where former First Ladies failed.


I don't want to sound like a "fan" of Michelle, but that is what I am quickly becoming.  
 We watched her speech yesterday to a group of activist women in the White House, and her grace and dignity and determination flowed from every word.
She has the intellectual qualities of a Hillary Clinton and the empathy of an Eleanor Roosevelt.  And the fashion sense of a Jackie O.  Not to mention glowing good looks (OK, so I mentioned it.)  And an icy, serious stare that could wilt any would-be heckler. 
I've heard more than one pundit from the center-left suggest she should learn from Hillary's hard lesson, and remain a lightweight on the sidelines in this historic fight. 
But after watching her eloquent and profound opening salvo, I would guess there's a lot more we will hear from her.  And that the leaders on the right are already worried she will succeed where Hillary failed.
The more, the better.  She's more than just a class act, she's a very moving speaker.  And this is an issue that needs those qualities from every quarter.

Rightwing Populism is a Contradiction in Terms


I love the need of David Brooks and others to portray the teabaggers as "populist" and anti-big-government when there was absolutely no invasion of our civil rights during the Bush Administration -- from imprisonment without trial to warrantless wiretaps -- that these people had problems with.

But if someone like Brooks is going to go and call these people populists, at the very least, you'd think he'd be under an obligation to show how their beliefs help working people and if he can't show that, then who exactly their beliefs do help.

I mean, we can get a group together for liberal causes that matches up pretty well, economically speaking -- so how are they not populist?

And if we go beyond income levels, what then distinguishes someone -- anyone -- as 'populist'?

It might help to look at what the original Populists actually advocated. If you do, you'll see that much of their platform (e.g. the "Omaha Platform", 1892) required a huge expansion of government power, greater worker and labor rights, and a mighty shot across the bow of Corporate America.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing, in the current teabagger's agenda with its crazy mix of anti-statism (Dems in power), subservience (GOP in power) and knee-jerk devotion to laissez-faire that a real populist from back-in-the-day would recognize as his own.

In fact, the only similarity is something Brooks (who titled his piece, "No, It's Not About Race") specifically won't admit to, namely, a predilection towards anti-immigrant bias bordering in some cases on racism.

But if we focus on the more positive aspects of the populist movement, it's hard not to conclude that this attempt to appropriate its name for purposes completely antithetical to everything it actually stood for is both a-historical and extremely cynical.

It's nothing but an effort to give rightwing groups a legitimacy -- or in other words, 'working class creds' -- that nothing in the agenda or activities of these groups would suggest.

You can understand why someone would want to do this -- who wants to appear, at least openly, as an apologist for wealth and power? -- but it's not something rational people ought to treat with any degree of respect.

Are the ACORN Amendments Bills of Attainder?


There are a few provisions of the US Constitution which are rarely mentioned in even rigorous Con Law classes in Law School.  The reasons are myriad and include that the evil against which it was to guard is no longer present or the Supreme Court has rendered a decision with such a hard, "bright line" that it is avoided.    The prohibition against the enactment of Bills of Attainder is one such provision  The Supreme Court issued a very hard, "bright line" decision about 60 years ago. The professional Congressional bill drafters are well aware of it and know how to avoid it--note emphasis on professional.   The Senate and House enacted amendments to different bills this past week purporting to bar an organization called ACORN from receiving Federal funds.  The Senate provision contains the precise formulation which the Supreme Court struck down 60 years ago as a Bill of Attainder.    The House provision makes an attempt to avoid this Constitutional prohibition but most attorneys I have talked with attorneys familiar with this clause (and there are very few in this category--I know of two in addition to myself but there are a few others I am certain) do not think it succeeded. One has expressed the opinion that the provision is so poorly drafted that it would apply to any organization which has an employee under indictment and would include, for example, any financial institution  with FDIC insured deposits.  The basic opinion is that the House provision, in order to avoid the Bill of Attainder absolute prohibition, must apply to more than ACORN; if it only applies to ACORN, which is named in the House amendment, then it falls afoul of the prohibition.  The "bright line" is the naming of specific organizations or individuals.   It will be difficult to fix this provision, and I am not certain it can be fixed.  In any event, it will be a boon to those who write articles for law journals and are looking for a topic upon which there is little analysis.

A Time for Reflection


With a few exceptions,  all memorable, I have not attended religious services even on, as today, Rosh Ha-shana. I do not fast on Yom Kippur. I have allowed others to convince me that I am less than a good Jew for those reasons. But, those people are wrong, I have come to believe. My Jewishness is an important part of who I am, and its teachings are part of what has called me into public service and how I see the world.

My faith is my own business, and not something to diary about. It is not my intent to proselytize, nor to preach. Not everyone sees the world as I do, and I do expect that anyone should, but one of my obligations as an American, as a Jew and as a human being, is to promote the well being of those who need our help. I am not perfect, and do not do as much as I could, but I try and that, it seems to me, at least, makes me as observant a Jew as the person who attends every service, or just those on the High Holy Days.

Read more »

The DEVILS of TASMANIA: Vicious and Sick


"No one is really sure exactly how the cartoon character Taz originated. Some theorize that it may have been an inspiration of Errol Flynn, a native Tasmanian and a 1930s star of such movies as The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938). His father, T.T. Flynn, was a professor who did some of the first studies of the Tasmanian devil's biology. "One story is that a producer from Warner Bros. saw a devil in a traveling zoo," says Nick Mooney, a wildlife biologist for Tasmania's Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment. 'The animal was driven crazy by confinement and was racing around in its cage, sort of like in the cartoon.' "

==========================================================

Tasmanian Devils originally ranged through much of Australia (not fully clear), but some 400 years before European colonization began in 1788, came to be restricted the large Southern Island that gave their name.  Tasmania would be the 42nd largest U.S. State after S. Carolina and before West Virginia at 26,421 square miles.  Put another way, Tasmania is just over 2/3 the size of the whole of Ireland. 

The Devil is the only remaining carnivorous marsupial (after the disappearance of the stripey marsupial wolf, or Thylacine last in captivity in Hobart, capital of Tasmania, in 1936).  Marsupials, with pouches, are a sub-class of mammals (oh, excuse us!, infraclass, claims Wikipedia in their tedious, been-to-college vernacular).

The Devils were so named by Europeans for their ferocity, and trademark piercing screams. The strongest bite among any mammal, it is said, and reportedly a real threat to livestock.  The size of a small dog, it's meat is said to taste like veal.  Malevolent toward one another, they are surprisingly tolerant of wildlife officials, and often rest calmly when physically handled.  But all is not well.

The poor Devils now mostly have a hideous transmissible cancer on their faces(!) and mouths; they contract this from biting into one another's faces (which they spend a lot of time doing), and the population may be about 80-90% down according to the worst estimate.  This horror dates to around 1996 and its origins are unknown; infectious cancers are exceedingly rare and there are only probably three such types in the world.  Of course, frequently biting into the large cancerous facial lesions of other infected Devils makes potentially every one of them a member of the at-risk population, regrettably.   

Curiously the cells transmitted are not those either of the infect-ing Devil or the infect-ed; but of a Devil from around 1996 who somehow caught the ailment and is long deceased (Devils survive only three months with this scourge, not being able to eat when the fast-growing tumors expand to obstruct their mouths).  If they are thus alien tissue, why don't their bodies reject the alien cancer cells?  That's what most animals would do!  Well, Devils on Tasmania are almost genetically identical and no one knows the reason for that; the result is that their immune systems don't recognize the cancerous cells of that long-deceased infected relative as foreign, and just accept the wretched infection as if their own tissue. 

But wait!  Tasmania is big enough, you see, that the population in the Northwest is just different enough genetically, that a Devil named Cedric from there did reject cancer cells and this meant in a nature series that I saw, cue the lights, there is hope and we will beat this thing!  Hollywood ending, as Cedric points the way! 

Except, uh, that Cedric later caught a mutant form of the cancer, or at any rate was somehow infected by December 2008.   They have cut out the tumors in order to (maybe) save Cedric's life, but the hope that Cedric brought has dwindled.   There is no durable strategy for the wild Devils now, except by quarantining tiny, uninfected populations, for example, in a fenced-off area of the island (Tasman Peninsula), also on an island nearby, and through maintaining captive (zoo and other) populations.  Hobart, which housed that last marsupial wolf, has stepped up to support a captive population.  

To review:  the entire population is at risk, there is no cure and none really expected (even though post-operative Cedric may be still alive), and substantially all Devils in the wild are slated to die in perhaps 10-20 years!

If every individual in the wild expires, then presumably captive Devils can be reintroduced after a time. But first one must make quite certain that the contaminated wild ones are all good and dead, not one survivor, ghastly as this is.  It complicates things further that Devils also eat carrion; there is little doubt they would eat a deceased Devil and there may be risk of infection there as well; little is known.  In incidentally, they typically live perhaps eight years in the wild, but the longevity world record is not known.    

Something already wiped out much of their population in (presumably) epidemics of 1909 and 1950, by the way, and they obviously recovered.  They are important to Tasmania incidentally in controlling the red fox, an appalling threat to the island introduced by "ecoterrorists" in 2001. Tasmania is over 1/3 covered by parks and refuges, and many of Australia's vanished animals live now only the island (what kind of awful person would introduce foxes intentionally into the fragile ecosystem is difficult to imagine).  

Warner Brothers, responsible for the undersigned's logo and the wonderful Taz character has stepped up to offer support, as has Ted Turner.  In the Northwest, the population is still little-affected by the way, so there remains a flicker of hope that they could somehow be resistant, despite Cedric's predicament.  Maybe. There is now talk of fencing off the entire Northwest; no one seems to know if that is realistic.

Save the Tasmanian Devil's site is http://tassiedevil.com.au/.  If you are in a position to help, please do so.  In any case, thank you for reading, and don't be afraid to tell others.

-O.T. 


Wooden Cities


A quick (and true) parable from history: in 1189, Richard the Lion-Hearted decided that no Jews would be allowed at his coronation ceremony. When some leading London Jews showed up at the door, they were turned away, and when the gathered crowd saw this they concluded that the new King was solidly anti-Semitic and that the best way to celebrate would be to murder as many Jews as possible. Mobs killed almost sixty people and set the city's Jewish ghetto, the Jewry, on fire.

Of course, 12th-century London was mostly made of wood. It is impossible to burn only one neighborhood in a wooden city, and before morning a decent sized chunk of the city was on fire, too.

I think about that story from time to time, and more often lately, because it's a story about how uncontrollable civil violence becomes. You cannot burn one neighborhood and not the adjoining neighborhoods. You cannot start a fire and give it a list of people it should burn or not burn. Once it starts it is outside of your control. Political violence works the same way, through a political version of the same physics: once it starts it is difficult to stop. It spreads rapidly and unpredictably. It is in no one's control. It claims victims on every side, and innocent bystanders too. Everybody lives in a wooden city.

There has never been left-wing violence without right-wing violence in this country, never right-wing violence without left-wing violence. There was abolitionist violence as well as pro-slavery violence, anarchist violence and authoritarian violence, anti-civil-rights and pro-civil rights violence. You can't read the history of Bleeding Kansas honestly and divide the killers from the martyrs along ideological lines. They go together. And once the violence begins, the violent make common cause against the rest of us, prolonging and intensifying the bloodletting as much as they can.

Am I saying that the violence was equal on both sides? No, and I am not the least bit interested in going through the box scores of old massacres. Am I positing moral equivalence for people on either side of these historical debates? No, because it's irrelevant. The fire doesn't care who's right. Am I ignoring who started the bloodshed in which case? Yes, I am, and so should you, because once the fire starts it's going to burn the just and unjust alike. The question is not who started it, but how to keep it from starting.

There is one civil peace, a single domestic tranquility, which protects us all. It is easy to disrupt and hard to restore. When it is disrupted, no one is safe. Every act of left-wing violence endangers people of the left. Every act of right-wing violence endangers people of the right. There is no safety but public safety.

The air in this country has been thick with inflammatory words since before the last election. It leaves an odor in the air, like gasoline soaking into rags. And when public figures speak of caution, some take that as partisan, or even as a provocation. That response strikes me as eerily disconnected from reality. The civil peace protects all equally, and if your political opponents want to preserve it, you should help them.

Still worse is keeping a selective list of partisan grievances, reciting a litany of all the horrible things the other side has done to your side lately while discounting the behavior of your own lunatic fringe. This accusatory stance can only hasten conflict, and never help to avoid it. And why does it matter if the "other side" has left more oily rags on the floor than your side? The question is how many oily rags pile up, not who does the piling, and you can only reduce the pile by reducing your own share of it. Throwing down more rags because "they" left even more is just self-destructive.

And discounting crimes against one's ideological opponents because the criminal was a lunatic or a loose cannon or not a "real" member of your movement is simply weak. The violent always come from the deranged and fanatical and weak-minded, especially during the build-up to a conflict. The fact that Abraham Lincoln didn't personally murder anybody in Kansas didn't calm anything down. Your side doesn't get to use the "just a nutjob" excuse because the other side's nutjobs won't honor it.

Progressive bloggers can discount the freak who bit off that tea-bagger's finger (!) and the freak who killed the poor demonstrator with the pro-life sign, claiming they "don't count," but there are people who are carrying around real or virtual press clippings of those events, building up their rage and justifying future acts of violence. They are counting those people. Conservative bloggers can claim that neo-Nazis like the one who shot up the Holocaust Museum "don't count" as conservatives, but the leftists most likely to commit atrocities count him. Every one of these people leaves another oily rag on our collective floor. Saying that we didn't put it there, and aren't responsible for removing it, is no help.

Civil violence is a lowest-common-denominator thing. The addled and hopeless are disproportionately attracted to it, and they are the primary audience for provocations. When a politician speaks in a way that reasonable people would only take as hyperbole or gamesmanship, that's not enough. What matters is how your speech is misunderstood.

Does it matter whether or not public figures intend to provoke violence? Well, to go back to my original story, Richard the Lion-Hearted never intended to start a pogrom. Of course not. He was an anti-Semite, but certainly didn't want any anti-Semitic bloodshed inside his kingdom. He was actually furious (he needed England's Jews to help finance his crusade), and did his best to stop the violence. But he could not. It spread to other towns and cities: to Norwich, to Lynn, to York. What Richard intended was not the point.

Dozens died in some towns. Hundreds died in York. It went on for months, well into the spring of 1190, like fire carried on a dry wind.

crossposted at http://dagblog.com

Torture and Healthcare


Yesterday, a condemned inmate in Ohio won a delay of sentence for "cruel and unusual" punishment.  It seems the technicians spent over two hours trying to find a suitable vein to insert an intravenous catheter without success.  It is difficult to find suitable veins in people who have previously abused IV drugs.  The judge granted a ten day stay.

However, what this prisoner experienced is really not that much different than what many patients have experienced in a hospital intensive care unit.  While starting an IV can hurt, starting a central line or a inserting a catheter to perform a cardiac catheterization is also painful. 

This judgment sets a dangerous precedent, what if a patient decides to sue their doctor for torture?

One of the difficulties that prisons face is trying to find appropriately trained personnel to insert IV's into condemned prisoners.  Most (if not all) state medical licensing boards prohibit physicians and other medical personnel from participating in executions.  This means the most experienced people cannot help when difficulty is encountered in starting an IV.  Perhaps the prisons can hire a retired or unlicensed physician as a consultant for IV access during executions.

There is certainly nothing cruel about starting an IV.  This inmate must have injected himself many times in the past directly in his veins.  So this is neither cruel nor unusual. 

The best idea I ever heard for executing prisoners would be to put them in a chamber and fill it with pure nitrogen.  That would be safe (for those observing), effective, pain-free and cheap.

Premier delayed


The scheduled premier of "Health Care in Black & White" has been delayed until Monday at noon. Please be patient. My computer's CPU is nearly in flames as it processes the video, sound and special effects required for the final cut. Monday, rain or shine.  Promise. 

'The Biggest Political Blunder in Modern History'


Today's NY Times op-ed page features a warning against the advent of an all out US-China trade war.  How did we get to this point where China holds so many cards?  The same way that Max Baucus came up with his outrageous health 'reform' bill, by putting the interests of huge corporate contributors over the well being of the people.  Some history:

The West, as defined by G-7 or the OECD, back in 1989 struck a Faustian deal that they would 'engage' China like they never would have the Soviet Union.
COCOM, which had very successfully kept western technologies out of Soviet hands, denying them a source of economic growth, was allowed to die in the early '90s.
G-7, at that time, controlled over 75% of the world's economy and could have used that primacy to engender real change in the remaining non-democratic countries.  That was supposed to have been the real 'peace dividend'.
Instead, western leaders kowtowed to their respective corporate constituents and set of a race to the bottom in pursuit of China's cheap, compliant labor force.
The rationale given to the gullible public was the 'engagement' theory in which we would 'change China from within' because 'economic reforms would lead to political reforms.'
Now, in 2009, China blocks almost all UN Security Council initiatives aimed at stemming corruption, oppression of minorities and women, sanctions on despotic regimes, etc.  The Central Commitee is stronger(and richer) than ever.
China is a champion of 'no strings' investment in myriad bad regimes in Africa and we can't complain because the West did the very same thing with China!
The decision of our leaders to trade with China in hopes of changing it instead of the other way around will eventually be recognized as their biggest political blunder in modern history.  Even bigger than abandonning Afghanistan after we expelled the Soviets.  Talk about 'blowback'!

There's an exclusive game in town that's been around now for about 40 years - it's known as the 'NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY' position.


There's an exclusive game in town that's been around now for about 40 years - it's known as the 'NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY' position.

 

The object is, or was, to secretly amass as many nuclear warheads as possible without anyone knowing, whilst vociferously objecting at every available opportunity to anyone else having a nuclear weapon. In other words, refusing to accept non-proliferation for others - but not for itself.

 

It's a very special game in that it has only one player - but it has family members in the Halls of Power in America and Europe and so is able to continue to play this extraordinarily simple but dangerous stratagem, ad infinitum.

 

That is until this week, when a Nuclear Conference, which apparently was ignorant of the rules - or someone forgot to tell it - decided to make public the fact that a Middle Eastern state had an estimated 300-500 nuclear warheads in an underground site in the Negev desert, which had never been declared to or inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Enough nuclear power to sink the whole of the Middle East and most of Europe.

 

The result being that the 'NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY' lark must be now effectively considered dead, finished, caput!   Because a state that is hiding an undeclared nuclear arsenal of that size is too dangerous to be allowed to get away with it.

 

The world will have to act now to dismantle this nuclear arsenal that has illegitimately made Israel possibly the 3rd most powerful nuclear state in the world, after Russia and America.

 

And the burning question is: why did the United States, throughout every presidency since John Kennedy, collude in this game of 'NUCLEAR AMBIGUITY' that had so disadvantaged the whole of Europe?  Why did the US veto every resolution pertaining to this issue?

 

Why should a political and trading block of over 500 million people be beholden to a tiny Mediterranean state with a demographic just over 1% of that of the EU?

 

Why should a political lobby that effectively decides US foreign policy also dictate to Europe?

 

Since last week, these are the burning questions of the day which urgently require answers.

 

Friendship and Harboring


A number of recent posts occasion this muse-meditation-whatever.  The first was a spirited discussion on extending health care to undocumented workers as I call them, or illegal aliens as the post called them.  The post was by an author I enjoy, and agree with, more often or not, but here we parted company, and I thought to myself "I wonder if he knows any undocumented workers personally?".  

The second occasion was a thoughtful post on, among other things, anger in the country.  

    To humor the clueless, strutting, butt-naked emperors our dogmas Right and Left have become, we've plunged deeper and deeper into fable. Doing so, our political philosophies have frozen rigid, and have cursed themselves - and us  - with distorted and compromised history. What can't mutate into incomprehensible propaganda is simply left out, and huge chunks of the real world simply end up on a shelf of circumscribed subjects, to be shunned or denied.

Wow, there's a paragraph I wish I wrote.  But I didn't, San Fernando Curt did, and lots of other paragraphs of equal force and passion. 

The third was a post I glanced at which urged me to get off the Kumbaya way and on to the Chicago Way... If They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. "That's the Chicago" way!
This got me thinking that Jane Addams' Chicago Way was more my Chicago Way than Al Capone's.  Happy Birthday Jane, in case I miss it on October 13.

So just a few words on friendship.  How Kumbaya can you get?  I'm going to put this in the form of a few theses, with the hope some people might enter the discussion with their own ideas, experiences, and observations.

It seems

Read more »

Obama (not Gibbs, Obama) Rejects Race as Lead Cause of Criticism


New York Times: President Obama said Friday that he did not believe his race was the cause of fierce criticism aimed at his administration in the contentious national debate over health care, but rather that the cause was a sense of suspicion and distrust many Americans have in their government.

"Are there people out there who don't like me because of race? I'm sure there are," Mr. Obama told CNN. "That's not the overriding issue here."

In five separate television interviews at the White House, Mr. Obama said he did not agree with former President Jimmy Carter's assertion that racism was fueling the opposition to his administration. He described himself as just the latest in a line of presidents whose motives had been questioned because they were trying to enact major change.

The Danger in Underestimating the Right Wing



I found this on a website called The Progressive Puppy this morning.  I'm still shaking and bordering on the incoherent, because I honestly don't know what to DO about this. 



The JFK poster appeared all over Dallas just days before he was assassinated.  I don't know how widespread the Obama poster has been, but the three of these pictures together tell a story that just cannot be denied.  (Thank you, Max Pearson.)

There is something going on in this country that is insidious and destructive and dangerous.  We just can't go on pretending that it comes from fringe groups in small numbers.  Not when we have the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs and Michelle Malkins and even so-called Christian ministers advocating taking Obama down.  They may not be selling violence outright, but they're adding flames to the fire, and they know it.  It draws audiences and constituencies, and they know their people well.

These are the same flame-throwers who, if something does happen to President Obama, will be the first to say, "Don't look at me.  I didn't do it."

At the same time, I don't want to be one who says, "I didn't do enough".  I could cite dozens of websites here that advocate violence against our president, but I won't.  A Google search with the right words is enough to give me nightmares again.  It's out there, and it's growing, and it's becoming mainstream.

It's only one step from becoming normal behavior.  One of our Four Freedoms.  But speech can inflame.  Speech can incite.  Speech can be accessory to violence.

We've already seen the next step past freedom of speech.  We've seen assault weapons being carried into political rallies, where the president is scheduled to speak.  Gunslingers coming to shut the president up.  Now it's at the threat stage--next will be the actual shooting.

When do we finally get it that this is no longer a Free Speech issue?  This is anarchy, and we're standing around making jokes about it, pointing fingers, shaking our heads, and then turning away, as if ignoring the so-called crazies will dilute their messages of pure hatred.

They're just getting started.  When the first "citizen" walked into a public auditorium with a gun slung over his shoulder and nobody stopped him, it gave permission to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, to follow.

Nancy Pelosi teared up the other day when she talked about the very real dangers in the advocating of violence.  What was the reaction?  A campaign of hatred and ridicule against Nancy Pelosi.

I'm not about to carry a gun to get my message across.  All I have are words, and in this present atmosphere, they're pretty puny.  But I see what's happening--this all-out hatred, this increasing call to violence--as wholly un-American.  This is NOT who we are.  This is NOT who we were meant to be.  Generations of Americans didn't work their asses off to bring us to this.  This is not a vast Right Wing conspiracy, it's Right Wingers out in the open, advocating anarchy, threatening to "take back" a country they've never understood, never nurtured, never respected.

They don't deserve it and they're not going to get it without a fight.

Or are they?

(Addendum:  read Bob Herbert's column here
[It's] time for other Americans, of whatever persuasion, to take a stand, to say we're better than this. They should do it because it's right. But also because we've seen so many times what can happen when this garbage gets out of control. Think about the Oklahoma City bombing, and the assassinations of King and the Kennedys. On Nov. 22, 1963, as they were preparing to fly to Dallas, a hotbed of political insanity, President Kennedy said to Mrs. Kennedy: "We're heading into nut country today."
 Ramona

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices here.)

"63% say that news stories are often inaccurate"


In the "told ya so" department, Pew Research reports that we Americans largely think media is full of crap.

http://people-press.org/report/543/

Another point on the curve,

What Ails South Carolina? Is It a Feature or a Bug?


Rachel Maddow had a great segment last night on the generally abysmal health status indicators for the great state of South Carolina.  What was best about the piece was its actual discussion of HEALTH (or lack of same) of a state's population, coupled with a question about whether the behavior of that state's political leadership is acting to improve or hinder their constituents' health status.  Rachel mentions the high rate of deadly strokes in South Carolina, which is a great opportunity to introduce this outstanding graphic North Carolina Stroke Care Collaborative.

Now, the point of this post is NOT to denigrate South Carolinians, Southerners in general, or people who suffer strokes.  The fact is that health status in this country is STUNNINGLY varied, with lots of communities facing health status challenges that would shock those of us living a comfortable 21st century life.  My own South Side of Chicago, of which I am a proud resident, has hopitalization rates for people in the prime of their lives that are twice those of Illinois in general.  Before you ask, those excess hospitalizations are NOT all for gunshot violence; instead, my neighbors are hospitalized for conditions like ashtma, heart failure and high blood pressure -- conditions that we are fully capable of managing WITHOUT hospitalization, but don't manage for large segments of the populace.  Rather, this post, like Ms. Maddow's segment, is to ask whether South Carolina's political leadership considers the state's relative poor health when doing things like opposing stimulus funding or health care reform.

Now, it's easy to argue that Joe Wilson, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham and Mark Sanford do care about the poor health of their constituents, but it's more important for them personally to score political points by opposing ANY effort by the Obama administration and the Congress to help South Carolina.  You can argue these guys can have the best of both worlds:  personally oppose things like health care reform to win cred with the Base, while knowing the legislation will pass and benefit their state regardless.  But even that hypothesis begs the question -- why does it please their Base to oppose beneficial legislation?  How do these guys rationalize doing and saying things that seem so detrimental to their constituents?

I'm not an expert on South Carolina nor a psychologist, but I grew up in the South and I now live in a community fraught with highly charged issues of race and poverty.  As in a previous post, I would say the behaviors of South Carolina pols and the Base to whom they pander reflect the old attitudes about race and poverty:  that poverty and low social standing are ordained from on high and/or a reflection of poor moral character.  In this worldview, wealth is a sign of virtue, not good fortune, and poverty is a sign of laziness and moral failing. 

Adding in race makes it even easier to exploit South Carolina's challenges for politcal gain.  The Nixon/Reagan Southern Strategy successfully pitted insecure whites against non-white groups.  The clear message of that stategy?  The government is going to take what little you have (jobs, health insurance) away from you and give it to the dark-skinned people who voted for the Democrats.  We continue to see EXACTLY that mentality among the Teabaggers, who are not a generally affluent bunch and express very clear fears that they shouldn't pay for lazy black people's health insurance.  The reality, of course, is that it's the wealthy elite that should and could help pay for the health insurance.  But the time-honored Southern Strategy divides and conquers the least well-off in our society in order to maintain the political and economic power of a small elite. 

It's hard not to view Sanford, Wilson, Graham and DeMint as the wealthy elite of a still-impoverished state, pitting it's vulnerable populations against each other to maintain their priveleged status.  In their worldview, South Carolina's poor health status is not a bug, but a feature, a feature demonstating the divine natural order of things, a feature that above all else enables them to preserve their positions of privelege and influence.

 

 

Obamamania Comes to China?


SHANGHAI, CHINA-While strolling through the shopping arcades surrounding Shanghai's sixteenth-century Yu Garden this afternoon, I happened upon a t-shirt shop prominently displaying one shirt (pictured below) featuring the smiling image of US president Barack Obama beside other shirts including images of Che Guevara and Chairman Mao. Were such a juxtaposition of Obama, Guevara, and Mao to appear at a t-shirt shop in the United States, it would only serve to confirm for Obama's detractors that he is indeed some sort of Communist. Were it to appear at a t-shirt shop, say, in some left-wing mecca like my own San Francisco or Berkeley, I suppose it would surprise no one. Its appearance at a t-shirt shop in Mao's own People's Republic of China, however, struck me as something a little special.

When the president visits China in mid-November as planned, he may face an audience as tough as any he has faced at home. Obama's recent decision on behalf of the United Auto Workers union to impose a 35% tariff on tire imports from China has angered many Chinese and prompted calls for in-kind retaliatory measures against the United States. Unlike the president's fans in Europe, Africa, and even the Middle East, many pragmatic Chinese view US affairs strictly through the prism of how America's actions affect China's material interests, and will not be swayed by the kind of grand statements on world peace and brotherhood among men that so electrified his audiences in Berlin and Cairo. Nonetheless, admiration for Obama remains strong among the more idealistic youth of China, and here in front of me today was my president's image on a Chinese t-shirt.

I have been visiting China since 1991, and have spent altogether about a year and a half living in Shanghai; and this is the first time in China I have ever seen a US president's image on a t-shirt. I have also seen pirate DVD editions of Obama's speeches for sale on the street, and at my university have seen Chinese professors showing Obama's speeches to classrooms full of attentive students. My own students also seem to hold Obama, not merely in admiration, but even in a kind of awe. More than any other recent US president, Obama seems to be seen - at least among many young people in China - not merely as the president of one powerful overseas nation, but as a world leader perhaps of unprecedented importance, and from whom much is expected.

Of course, even older and less idealistic Chinese will tell you that Obama is "better than Bush." To his good fortune, Obama's immediate predecessor was one against whom it would be rather easy to win a popularity contest anywhere in the world except perhaps in Israel. Being "better than Bush" still serves Obama well, and probably will for some time to come. Despite the tendency here (at least for the average Zhou Six-Pack or Zhou the Plumber) to view US actions more-or-less exclusively on the basis of how they affect China, both Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq and his arrogant behavior with the world at-large made him immensely unpopular here. Just as Obama is the first US president whose image I've ever seen on a Chinese t-shirt, Bush was the first I've ever heard people in China tell me they just couldn't stand the sight of.

Despite his current troubles at home and abroad, however, Obama has far more going for him than the mere fact that he isn't George W. Bush. Appealing to the youth of China may be the key to his success here, and come November, I would hope to see many of China's youth wearing t-shirts like the one I saw today.

Perhaps I'll even see Zhou the Plumber wearing one.

Mark C. Eades
Visiting Professor of English Language and Literature,
Shanghai International Studies University
http://www.mceades.com

Mainstream Racists: 3 Senators, One Congressman, All In The Last Year


Consider this audio.

We can talk forever about racism on the fringes of the Republican Party, and they can forever have "plausible denial."

But what of these recent quotes (and hoaxes) by senators, congressmen, and their campaigns? Know who is who?

PS. Our latest show is #3 on BTR Progressive Politics. Watch your back Maddow:

Irving Kristol dead at 89; who knew?


He contributed much less good and much more hate and grief to the world than anyone named Kennedy.

Rest in peace, as do the victims of your rhetoric's wake.

Minsky Minimum Wages, After the "Minsky Moment"


Steven Mihm, the Boston Globe's econ correspondent, has posted a relatively long appreciation of the economist Hyman Minsky, also recently celebrated by Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz for predicting the "Minsky moment" when capitalism more or less melted down after Wall Street's fourth biggest investment bank, Lehman Brothers, collapsed in September, 2008.

Minsky charted a progression of financial markets beginning with predominantly conservative borrowers, who can cover the interest on their loans and pay down the principal out of income.

These solid citizens are succeeded by speculative borrowers whose income only covers interest, and then by Ponzi schemers, who can only pay the interest on their loans by borrowing more money.

When financial markets were dominated by Ponzi borrowers, Minsky predicted that the failure of one big player could bring down the whole system, and that's exactly what happened when Lehman failed in September 2008: a Minsky moment.

So Hyman Minsky predicted the mess we're in more accurately than anybody else, and you might think that his prescription for fixing this mess would enjoy more respect than the prescriptions of boneheads like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke, who never saw it coming.

But Minsky's influence is still minimal, and intelligent readers can probably figure out why from Steven Mihm's excellent summary in the Boston Globe...

The preferred mainstream tactic for pulling the economy out of a crisis was - and is - based on the Keynesian notion of "priming the pump" by sending money that will employ lots of high-skilled, unionized labor - by building a new high-speed train line, for example.

Minsky, however, argued for a "bubble-up" approach, sending money to the poor and unskilled first. The government - or what he liked to call "Big Government" - should become the "employer of last resort," he said, offering a job to anyone who wanted one at a set minimum wage. It would be paid to workers who would supply child care, clean streets, and provide services that would give taxpayers a visible return on their dollars.

Such a program would not only help the poor and unskilled, he believed, but would put a floor beneath everyone else's wages too, preventing salaries of more skilled workers from falling too precipitously, and sending benefits up the socioeconomic ladder.

"Sending money to the poor and unskilled first!" But the boneheads who made this mess put Goldman Sachs at the front of the line, and the poor and unskilled nowhere.

Cougar Reported on Microsoft Campus - Apple OS invading MS?


http://nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/18/us/AP-US-Microsoft-Cougar.html
Can't help myself.
On the advent of MS releasing a service pack for Vista a big Cat ala Macintosh naming scheme is seen prowling the MS Campus.
Oh The Irony the irony.

The Daddy-O is right again: Bibi and Ehud Barak tell it like it is


Is there a nation or a people in the world more afraid of being attacked than Israel? More ready to defend itself? And yet Bibi and Barak both confirmed what I've said all along: Iran is no nuclear threat to them, or anyone else, and it never would be. Israel's defenses are too strong, and if Iran nuked Tel Aviv, Iran would shortly afterwards cease to exist, for all practical purposes.

I'll never forget the first time I broached the subject of nuclear weapons. All I got in response was crickets. Not a thing. I know it's a tough subject. I know it's scary as hell. I know it goes against intuition to think that a country with nukes isn't a threat. But it isn't. Not as long as MAD works.

I've marched against nuclear proliferation. I've marched to ban all nukes. Now I'm quite a bit older. Nukes aren't going away any time soon. The Federal Reserve will be abolished first.

But NO nation is going to use nukes in a first strike, except possibly the U.S. If any nation uses nukes, they will be reduced to ashes by a totally justified counterattack.

Anyone who claims otherwise is unable to face reality, or just can't make their minds go to a hypothetical nuclear scenario. Understandable. But not very realistic.

Live from Mibbit......It's Friday Night!


We're talking mushrooms, lesbian lushes and mixed drinks in the chat room.  And a whole bunch of other stuff.  Come on over and join in the fun.


Re: Sanctimonious Jimmy Carter


I just wanted to post a quick thank you to those individuals who came to my defense on this post by Rutabaga Ridgepole. I simply forgot that some have moved on after the 2008 Presidential Primary season while others linger in self pity. It really makes sense after I went back to the post to read how  much agreement there was with Lalo. I see that those who didn't like Jimmy Carter's words in the Primary don't like his words now. I have asked Lalo to let it go.  And now I am asking Mr. Rutabaga Ridgepole a.k.a Jacob Freeze to let it go, move on and grow up.

It doesn't matter how many times you spew venom at me, toward Obama or anyone who might support him, it will not change the fact that he won the Democratic Primary and ultimately the General Election.


The Pecking Order


The FDA has approved the vaccine for H1N1. This clears the way for the manufacturers to begin making the vaccine with the bulk of it becoming available around Oct. 15th.

A starting supply of the vaccine will be made available earlier, but getting vaccinated early will not be on a first come, first serve basis.  Here's the pecking order:
  • Pregnant women
  • Parents/Caregivers of children under 6 months of age.
  • Health care workers/Emergency medical services personnel.
  • Ages 6 months to 24 years
  • Ages 25 through 64 with chronic health conditions.
If you are not on the list, don't get yer knickers in a twist.  Eventually, enough vaccine will be produced and anyone who wants a vaccine against H1N1 will get one.  For free.  Yep.  The gubbermint is buying this from the manufacturers and giving it away to the people for free.  Damn socialists.   Of course, the vaccine itself is free, but some of the facilities giving the injections might charge a fee for providing this service.  Damn capitalists.

While you are waiting for your free H1N1 vaccine, get a regular flu shot. ($10-$30 average cost.  No charge for Medicare/Medicaid) According to the government flu website, you need both for the best protection this flu season.

In the meantime,  WASH YER HANDS.  Did you hear me?  Wash 'em!  And stop picking yer nose!  And keep yer fingers away from your mouth!  And learn how to sneeze like Elmo.

Fer cryin' out loud.  If yer sick, stay home from work/school/both.  Don't be spreading yer crummy ass sick germs all over the place.

Seriously. 
Any flu can turn deadly. 
Protect yourself. 
Protect the ones you love.


Links of interest:

Center for Disease Control

Outbreak World Map

More Countries Confirm Swine Flu

Production of Swine Flu Vaccine

h/t ConnecticutMan1

Public Radio Corrects "Non-partisan" Error


A couple days ago, I posted a blog entry complaining of the too cozy a relationship between public radio and its for-profit business donors. While I still think there is undue influence, I'm happy to report that yesterday PRI's program "The World" clarified its description of the Lewin Group as a "non-partisan" health care consulting business.

Pointing out that United Healthcare owns the Lewin Group was only right and came after many listeners, this one included, pointed out to PRI that Lewin's vice-president was no one to interview for unbiased information on whether health care reform would cover illegal immigrants.

I guess there's still hope for public radio as long as we're vigilant. Now if NPR would let Mara Liasson and Juan Williams flee to Fox along with ABC News' John Stossel.


A GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT


Shelby Foote


The Netherlands were once an imperialistic power. Historically of course, the Dutch were damn smart traders and had their own empire of the seas for centuries; making its mark all over the world.

I remember traveling to the Netherlands a few times during the 90's. A couple of those visits involved business contacts and I even attended a small convention there. I only bring this up because I was able to have drinks with some youngsters there, getting their view of things. They were more interested in what was happening in the States than sharing their own cultural issues; although everybody seemed to look down on the Belgians. Go figure?

I also met with some businessmen and even saw some housing developments that startled me. I mean it looked like West Bloomington, Minnesota. You know, the structures were relatively new and there were three car garages and stuff.

The issue there, at that time, involved the Jamaicans. These Islanders ended up there for God Knows What reasons and found themselves poor, unemployed and unappreciated. These are generalizations for sure, and I have done no research to discover why THEY were there.

The businessmen were upset because THEY all seemed to huddle around a monument of some sort right smack in the middle of one of the town crossroads.. And the businessmen were upset that their tax dollars were supporting THEM.

It seems that THEY would actually urinate upon the edifice.  You could see the stains in broad daylight; on a structure, that some would contend is a sacred object in the Netherlands.

We cannot get away from racial bias.  At any rate, even the Netherlands, this most liberal of places in the Western World, had racial tensions.

England is having one hell of a time with its new Muslim population as are the French.  Europe has, for sometime, enjoyed pointing at the States as being a peculiar seat of racism. The United States is not alone in its attempt to deal with racial strife.

America is not therefore, the only nation to have trouble with racial issues or religious bias.  And sometimes I think factions of the Left ignore this fact of life. While I write this, a limey on a Christian channel is narrating a show that has the sole purpose of demonstrating that John Shakespeare, the father of William Shakespeare, was Roman Catholic. Hahahahahahaha  And it is not some half hour documentary. IT IS A SERIES. And, if I recall correctly, there is only one mention of Sir Thomas More in all 37 plays, and that mention comes at the time of More's execution in the play. This all strikes me as hilarious. On the other hand, having done my own cursory research concerning the Bard years ago, it certainly could be of interest as to what Shakespeare's religion was.  That is, while examining the plays.

Did you know that George W. Bush actually read three of William Shakespeare's plays?

And while Shakespeare is writing his plays during the last half of the 16th century and a few years into the 17th century, this country is about to greet its first European settlers (with apologies of course to the Spaniards) who would be strict anti papists.  The sects that came here of course hated each other for the most part, but they could all agree on the evil nature of the Roman Catholic Church as well as the Hebrew Faith.

I have always been fascinated by The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down:

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train
'Til Stoneman's cavalry came and tore up the tracks again
In the winter of '65, we were hungry, just barely alive
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "La, la, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see, there go the Robert E.Lee"
Now I don't mind choppin' wood, and I don't care if the money's no good
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should never have taken the very best

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "La, la, la"

Like my father before me, I will work the land
And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand
He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can't raise a Caine back up when he's in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, na"

The night they drove old Dixie down
And all the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, na"

Robbie Robertson

Joan Baez of course, loved this song, and made some money off of it. Joan, who is a goddess in my mind, has been booed for singing it.

Me? I love this song. Always have. And always will. But why?

I also worship General Sherman along with his boss, General Grant. I mean the Civil War just went on and on and on. Only not 'over there' but over here. In my cursory review of Shelby Foote's trilogy, Lee and his minions would take brief sojourns up north, cause havoc and run back into their own territory--which they knew very well.

Do not be fooled by some Civil War accounts that nothing happened that was good for the Union before Gettysburg for heavens sakes. I mean the Union had destroyed the Western Confederacy. Louisiana had already been conquered and a make shift government was being run by a rather incompetent and racist northern general, but that is another story. The war in the West was over early on with the Siege of Vicksburg being the one remaining task to finish it off and that was done during the Battle of Gettysburg.  And the South by that time had been corralled pretty much in a few states.  Remember, Lincoln had secured Maryland at the onset of the war. Since DC is really in Maryland, that was a good thing.

Lincoln, after being a little irritated with General  Meade  for 'letting Lee get away' after that horrendous loss of men on both sides. But Grant had finally wrapped up Vicksburg, and the General received great press following the victory.  Grant was chosen as leader of the Union forces.  Grant would use any means necessary to finish this war.

The North had the technology--trains and telegraph and arms--and the industrialization that made victory a certainty. But battles would continue, Confederate troops would return home, receive the sustenance they needed and continue their forays against the Union.

Sherman wanted to make the march to the sea. He had to talk Grant into it. But once Sherman started the march, nothing would stop it.

I make this 8th grade historical overview simply to underline how important it was for Grant and Sherman to do what they did. The war would have continued for more years than it did if it weren't for this new plan of action. You had to hit the enemy while they were down. Sherman, during his march, saw younger and younger Confederates and well as older and older Confederates. You had to destroy the locations that kept on supplying the insurgents.  Oh and Foote will even point out, although other tomes do a better job, that Sherman never ordered the burning of Atlanta. But there is no time to get into such things here.

THE SOUTH WILL NEVER DIE.

Come and get us was the attitude of the South. Now I am born 90 years after this mess. But if I can feel bad about Socrates, I certainly can have feelings about the South. And THE SOUTH SUCKED IN THE 19TH Century. No doubt about it. Not in my mind. No two sides to every story. Not this one.

But the song. I can sympathize with Virgil Caine. Just like Joan--a lady who is probably more liberal than me. The individual caught up in the carnage. A dispute started by leaders who thought they were acting valiantly under ancient Roman Rules. And war is hell. By the way, if you are interested I found the most exciting history of Virgil Caine. It really is only ten pages or so. But it kind of goes through the song line by line, demonstrating the strict historical inaccuracies etc...A fun read. http://theband.hiof.no/articles/dixie_viney.html

There are factional strifes in parts of Europe and Asia that go back thousands of years.  The scar left on the South during our Civil War is there for all to see and will be forever.

Which brings me to another subject. Americans are obsessive/compulsive. One reason we conquered the world. Star Trek has 70 some scripts that were put on screen. And people immediately memorized every single line. Every episode was dissected. I think the Cling-On language was being spoken before Star Trek Generation ever came out. Hahahaha.

And there are Civil War nuts. I mean we have people in this country, most of whom are located in the South, who know every battle, every general, every gopher that ever ran into enemy fire. People stage old battles and will spend hours in bars arguing every stage of every battle. They know it backwards and forwards. Like Richard III knowing that it was the defective shoe that broke the horse's leg, which led to the fall of Richard as well as the loss of the battle and ultimately the war.

Shelby Foote, many years after completing his trilogy on the Civil War was interviewed on CSPAN shortly before he died and indicated that he would have fought on the side of the Confederacy because he was a son of Mississippi. See, he held onto those old Roman ideals; this aristocratic fiction of honor and such. When I heard that I jumped right out of my seat.

He said some other things of interest to me related to this revelation. He spoke of a 'Gentleman's Agreement' between the North and the South following the war and the Hayes election in '76. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT SHOULD NO LONGER BE DISCUSSED.  And then Foote lets loose with a fart so intense, the stench came right out of my TV. That gentlemen's agreement has been breached in recent years.  Think about that and then you will realize why he would have signed on as a Son of Mississippi.Now here was a guy who came up with a way of presenting a complicated war that recounted the morning for Lincoln in his household and then recount the same morning for Jefferson Davis.

Folks, the Gentlemen's Agreement was this:

Negros do not count for much anyway. You do not care for them. We certainly do not care for them.  Most of THEM live with us anyway. We will handle it. Leave us alone.

I am writing this after the single most surprising election of my entire life. In 2007 when I saw this man give a speech across the street from a Lincoln residence in Chicago, Illinois, I KNEW he could never be elected President in this country. I never cheered so hard and cried so hard at the same time in my life as I did in November of last year.  It still does not make any sense to me. Hahahahahaha

If I was and am that surprised, what on earth do the racists in this country feel?

So why am I writing all this background, when I have probably lost half my audience? Because there is a fiction being perpetrated by the MSM including the most liberal of them: MSNBC. Jughead is right at this moment denying that beck or rush and any of the radio right are racist, that these demagogues have said anything racist. And the entire morning show is dedicated to the proposition that President Carter and Speaker Pelosi are out of their cotton pickin' minds to even suggest that these teabaggers, that these armed chanters, that these base human beings are racist.

THIS IS PURE DENIAL BY SCARBOROUGH AND HIS TROOPS TO THE POINT OF MAKING ALL OF THEM RACIST. That is how bad this miscalculation on their part makes them look.


BIRTHERS

I will not spend much time on this. ALL BIRTHERS ARE RACISTS. Period, end of discussion. If McCain were president, NO ONE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR PANAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATES. Never. No way. No how. You can make the joke that no one would because we would end up with someone even dumber than w--Sara Palin.  But, are you telling me that the Birthers would settle for Biden for any other reason than race?  Any rate, many sites on this crap.

SECESSION

Secession is a term that is strictly racist in nature besides being treasonous. There was one secession in this country and it was over slavery. Period. End of discussion.

Glenn beck likes to say 'secession' and that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Demint, Senator from our first secessionist SC, has spoken of secession. Real surprise that one.

MUSLIM FASCIST

Brendan Steinhauser the Director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the march and calls the shots for its subordinate group, Tea Party Patriots has called Our President a Muslim fascist.

Rush Limbaugh has called Our President a Muslim fascist.

Glenn beck has called our President a Muslim fascist.

Take a look at how repubs are picking up on rush's cues here. I mean rush actually said that he never called Obama Hitler (which is a lie by the way but who cares in this context) but rather rush claims he only calls Obama a racist, fascist, communist.....blah blah blah:

The County Times of St. Mary's County, Maryland, reported on an appearance that Sauerbrey -- a former two-time GOP nominee for governor -- put in at a local Republican dinner this past Saturday. The paper reports that Sauerbrey said that President Obama was surrounded by a cult-like following, edging towards that of Juan Peron or Adolf Hitler. She told the paper that she was not making a comparison between Obama and Hitler, but instead saying that the conditions in this country were such that a dictator could usurp the rights of citizens:

She said that the Obama administration advanced "fascist, socialist ideals."

"I'm really afraid for the future of our country," Sauerbrey told attendees at the annual Lincoln/Reagan Dinner of Sept. 12 in Callaway. "Our Constitution is indeed being dismantled."

In an interview with TPM, Sauerbrey disputed some of the article -- but made clear the dangers of economic fascism and a breakdown in economic freedom and the rule of law.

"My point was very clearly not trying to compare our president to Eva Peron or Juan Peron or Adolf Hitler," Sauerbrey told me. "My point was that when certain policies are implemented by any administration -- and I also said, I think later to the reporter in chatting with him afterwards, that I was equally unhappy with the out of control spending in the Bush administration -- when you start down this road of these kinds of policies, you are on the road to destroying what has made this a great country."

Sauerbrey said she probably did refer to a cult-like following, "because this is typical of any time you get a strong leader." But her discussion of Juan Peron's Argentina was an example of what happens when big government causes hyperinflation of a currency -- which she sees as a real danger here.

"I never mentioned Hitler's name other than when the reporter came up to me afterwards," she said. "And I said, look, I am not making a direct comparison Obama and Hitler. I'm making a comparison between policies in countries, and that history has a way of repeating itself.  http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/former-bush-administration-official-warns-against-economic-fascism-under-obama.php?ref=fpa

In other words, the point here is to call Obama a fascist/communist/foreign-like.....

REPARATIONS

Reparations is a term that rush really likes lately. All government programs that help people are only reparations to Blacks for harms committed upon them as slaves and as de facto slaves.

The Gentlemen's Agreement has been broken.  Some sixty years ago by my calculation as soon as HST signed the military desegregation order.

But all rules concerning political correctness and basic human decency are currently out the window.

I will continue this discussion in Part 2.

More Than Race


Are angry right-wing outbursts against President Obama based in racism?  Yes.  Would any Democratic president, of any color or gender, see the same animosity?  Yes; the tone might not be so overtly racial but the hostility would be just the same.

The right-wing mindset - especially in the South (where I grew up) - has a deep belief that historically prevailing social order is "right"; that it is a product either of divine intent or social Darwinism or both, and that it is inherently wrong for liberal government to interfere with it (e.g. through redistribution of wealth, legislation protecting minority rights, affirmative action, etc.).  The right-wing base believes that all of us - not just minorities - should "know our place" in the prevailing order and hold to it.  It is not a surprise that market fundamentalism is attractive to the far right:  market fundamentalism is simply a form of social Darwinism, proposing that markets have a "natural" output that it is anathema to interfere with.  One could easily substitute "God's will" for "the Invisible Hand".  It is not a surprise that illegal immigration is the hot button for the right wing:  Hispanic immigrants, legal or otherwise, are perceived as a tremendous threat to the culture.

Modern Southern racism is not rooted in obselete views of racial superiority; it is based on cultural exceptionalism - the view that white, Christian "culture" has demonstrated its superiority by building the world's greatest nation, and that liberalism is an effort to undermine the prevailing culture.  Minorities who aid in promoting the superiority of the prevailing culture are welcomed, embraced, even venerated by modern racists.  

Very important not to simply view today's right-wing rage through the outdated prism of the Civil Rights era.  

Daily Pulse: Adele Stan Talks Teabaggers (Audio)


By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger


Last Saturday, veteran right wing watcher Adele Stan of AlterNet covered the Tax Payers' March on Washington (aka the 912 March or the DC Tea Party). About 70,000 conservative protesters converged on Washington to air their grievances, including opposition to President Obama's health care reform agenda. Protesters carried signs warning of death panels, tax-funded abortions, and healthcare for "illegals."

Read more »

Sebelius Teaches Todd The Elmo Sneeze Method


Via ABC's Political Punch:

At a briefing just now, NBC's Chuck Todd just sneezed into his hand, rather than his arm, prompting the joking disapproval of Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Tort Reform via Single Payer


Like many of this site's readers, I've been totally preoccupied by the debate surrounding health care reform over the past few months, and increasingly disappointed that we'll really get anything near the type of reform we, as a country, need.  While recently twiddling my thumbs and bemoaning the fact that the single payer idea has gotten no attention whatsoever, however, I stumbled upon an idea that seemed like a good reason why the right might actually support a single payer system (yeah right, keep dreaming).

Anyway it goes like this:  I'm a lawyer by trade, and have worked in the past in the personal injury defense field, and have more recently dabbled in medical malpractice (plaintiff side).  I do mostly commercial and business litigation, but sometimes, my firm's business clients have other legal needs where we can be of assitance, but I digress.  In the personal injury and medical malpractice fields, damage awards generally consist of economic and non-economic damages.  Typically, although not always, the largest component of an economic damages award are the past and future medical bills (whether paid for by insurance or not, as insurers usually have lien rights against any recovery).  These "hard and fast" numbers are often what set the expectations of total recovery or exposure in a case.  For example, a small accident where one goes to a doctor once and then just deals with the pain for a short period, and incurs only $200 in medical bills, just will not settle for more than a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, dollars.  The same accident, however, accompanied by a course of treatment with a chiropractor for 5-6 weeks and resulting in bills of $5,000 is far more likely to settle for $10,000 - $15,000.  None of this is set in stone, mind you, but insurance adjusters, at least for the most part, view their world this way.

What would happen if all these bills were paid through a sungle payer health care system?  In other words, if you never got a bill and never knew or cared how much the care in question cost you, how would you be able to include it as part of a damages calculation?  What would happen in that case is you'd be forced to go to trial seeking wage loss, dimished earning capacity, and pain and suffering only.  A huge component of your case (to which you had no entitlement anyway, but which increased the value of everything else) would be gone.  There'd be no more awards for future medicals, as they'd be borne by the system without recourse.

Now, admittedly, without changes, this would break down a bit when we got to the point of the single "payor" seeking subrogation against the wrongdoer, but my guess is that we could work out a good system to allow this to proceed on a parallel-type track, unencumbered by notions of the victim's responsibility for a medical lien.  

In my opinion, removing what is often the largest element of a PI or medical malpractice case from the equation, and which normally doesn't belong to the injured party anyway, would tend to reduce the settlement and jury verdict value of a number of these cases, and would altogether eliminate those cases where a small settlement would otherwise have been appropriate but for a plainitff's overtreatment for purposes of pumping up value.

Just sayin'.  

Transactional hyperbole


God rest her soul, my mom suffered... difficulties. Much of the time, her actions were irrational and her behavior so jarringly disturbed she seemed... lemme see... what to call it? Oh, yes. The scientific term, I believe, is...

...BATSHIT CRAZY!

Read more »

Email Reponse from Sen. Mark Warner - VA


So yesterday I submitted a comment to one of my Senators, Mark Warner of Virginia expressing my strong support for Health Care Reform only if it includes a strong public option.  Today I received a response from his office that interestingly completely ignores the Public Option question.  It does however express that Senator Warner doesn't support a Single Payer program which with his pro-business background I'm not suprised about; but it basically talks past the question of Public Option.

"Although I do not support a government-run single-payer health care system, I believe we need comprehensive reform to achieve a competitive, cost-effective, and efficient system.  This effort should be primarily focused on ensuring that all Americans can get adequate health coverage, and the coverage must be cost-effective and based upon data-driven medical standards.  We must ensure that competition remains among health care providers because it is precisely that competition that drives innovation and cost reduction in the industry.  Any final reform should also include measures to promote prevention and wellness, senior navigation through the health system, health information technology ("health IT") and telemedicine."

My glass half full side says that he is leaving the door open to support of a good bill with a Public Option; but of course there is another half of that glass and it tells me that he doesn't have the guts to say to one of his constituents that he won't vote how I've asked him to.

Let's all pray that Senator Warner and the other moderate Dems in the Senate step up and do the right thing for the American people and ensure us a final bill with a Strong Public Option.



"The Chicago Way"


This bull-ony that the Repubs keep trying to feed America seems to be taking hold.  I believe that the plan is "Death by a Thousand Cuts'.  They seem to always be on the offensive.  They chip chip chip away at the foundation until the building falls.  We are the building.  Guvrnmint is the foundation. 

Unless we want to capitulate, and go home, I suggest that all of our spokespeople get off the Kumbaya Wagon and start kickin it "The Chicago Way".  You remember 'The Untouchables' movie , don't you? 

You wanna know how to get Capone/McConnell? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way! And that's how you get Capone/Bhonner. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?

 

 

 

Kerry-Lugar Will Pay Huge Dividends


Back in May, Sen. Kerry and Sen. Lugar introduced a bill to triple non-military aid to Pakistan. The bill passed the House and Senate in June (unanimously in the Senate). It's time for Congress to reconcile the bills and send to Obama to sign.

The importance of Kerry-Lugar is clear - Pakistan is a lynchpin for the region, but has been teetering for decades. The current government, now a year old, has taken important steps towards fighting religious extremism, normalizing relations with India, and democratizing the political process after years of dictatorial rule. But if progress is to continue, the US needs to do more than provide military assistance - we need to invest in building a prosperous and sustainable economic infrastructure in the region.

While recent research shows Taliban and al Qaeda militants are despised in Pakistan, the US, and the democratic West in general, continues to suffer a notoriously bad reputation as well. Additionally, Pakistanis, while certainly concerned with extremist violence, are also very concerned about economic issues in their country. Kerry-Lugar will show Pakistanis that the US is an honest partner that is invested in the long-term future of their country.

Earlier this week, Adm. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that Kerry-Lugar is important to the long-term success of a democratic Pakistan.

'We think that is an important long-term relationship. They still ask the question, are you staying or going this time? Not unlike the question that gets asked in Afghanistan. Kerry-Lugar bill is very important, as far as I am concerned because it is not about $ 1.5 billion a year as much as it is a five-year commitment to Pakistan.'
Pakistan's President Zardari is on his way to New York to co-chair the Friends of Democratic Pakistan (FoDP) summit on September 24 with US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Congress should pass, and President Obama should sign a reconciled bill in time to hold the signing ceremony while President Zardari is visiting next week to demonstrate the goodwill of the US and introduce a new starting point for a stronger partnership between our two nations.

Even Jane is moderating...


 

 

It's important for the general well-being of our nation that we work together on the problem of keeping the most number of citizens healthy for the longest amount of time possible in the most efficient way possible. That's easily said. But what can we do about it?  Watch and see what Congress will do; it will surprise you.

"We want to build upon what's best  about our current system, but we have to change a number of things in order to make it work for the future," said Sen. Olympia Snowe to John Harwood.

"I think the right policy will garner votes," she said.

Thank you for your constructive voice, Senator. But many Americans these days, on both ends of the political spectrum, have forsaken their faith in a Congress that can actually produce the "right policy."  Bahhumbug! to you skeptics who are ready to give up on the system because you think it is corrupt beyond repair. Sure, there is lobbying that dilutes the outcomes of proposed legislation.  And yes, vested interests do make money inappropriately off the process. What else is new in the history of the human race?

 

But this health care thing is different. You see, Congress is now under a public microscope, thanks to a citizenry that is fervently engaging in public discourse. If civil people (This means you!?) will get involved with the debate, the mayhem of upstart rabble-rousers will be drowned out by the voice of reason. This is how democracy is supposed to work. Senators and
Congressman will pressed, literally, by the voice of the people, into true responsibility.

 

The favorable difference in outcome in this case--the proposed health care Act of 2009--is that everybody is watching.  We have a situation here where the center can, and will, produce a finished legislative product  that is acceptable to the extremes of both parties. Sure, single-payer went down before this drama even started.  And the public option--well, it is evolving-- but its inspired emphasis on universal coverage is metamorphosing into a form that will pass effectively through this moment in time-- this unique window of opportunity.  Health care reform is an idea whose time has come.

 

Sen. Snowe points out that "some very important pieces" have been assembled, and will serve as a basis upon which the Senate and House can work toward a real plan for public health--a plan that will prove as significant in our national history as Medicare has shown itself to be.

 

Setting up "exchanges" will become the nucleus of our new health care system. "Exchanges" are the new, improved, streamlined public option, because they will ultimately(maybe not immediately) include legislative mechanisms by which competition will thrive (due to price-shopping) and egregious policies (as deniability due to pre-existing conditions) will be weeded out. If our informed citizenry do not drop the ball, here is something our nation can work with to progress toward better public health.

 

But there's a fly in the ointment: Fiscal responsibility must be maintained, or at least attempted. We can't spend money we don't have. Or at least we must pretend to have it (as does the Fed and the Treas.) That's a bigger factor than you think. In the big picture, that's a health issue as well.

And why do we need to balance a move toward universal health care coverage with provisions for fiscal responsibility?  Sean Brodrick of Uncommon Wisdom  writes: "The Ponzi scheme of the U.S. government buying its own debt can't go on forever. Eventually, the U.S. dollar will crumble, and probably U.S.-dollar-denominated debt along with it."

  

So the very real possibility of US Government insolvency and bankruptcy must be weighed in our set (public) options. The deficit may seem invisible to most folks now, but in the long run we'll have to pay that 11-trillion-dollar piper his fees-for-service, probably at some future date, and most likely payable not in dollars but in a new world reserve currency such as SDRs or RNBs.

 

Monetarily and medically, we've got to get this ship of state charted on a viable path.

 

Why, even Paul Krugman softened a little when he saw the content of the "Baucus" plan, although I do not like to call it that because it is destined, as a work in progress, to become the President's de facto plan. Mr. Krugman writes:

 "Senator Baucus's mark is better than many of us expected. If it serves as a basis for negotiation, and the result of those negotiations is a plan that's stronger, not weaker, reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they're willing to live with." Krugman also mentions: "Several European countries, including Switzerland and the Netherlands, have managed to achieve universal coverage with a mainly private insurance system."

 

If our nation is to be delivered from bad health, bankruptcy, incivility and certain demise,  moderation  must become the order of the day. And we do have a compass with which to guide us through this stabilizing maneuver.  A big part of our strategy toward that end is found in our Constitution, whic is, according to Sen. Orrin Hatch, "the oldest written charter of government in use in the world today." It has been proven to be a universal template of incredible utility.  Justice Sotomayor agrees: "For as long as I can remember, I have been inspired by the achievement of our Founding Fathers. They set forth principles that have endured for more than two centuries. Those principles are as meaningful and relevant in each generation as the generation before."   

 

We have a heritage of getting problems worked out. Between the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial branches of our democratic/republican government, we can lean on that framework of structured collective responsibility--the  Constitution-- to guide us through these perilous times. We can do it, but we've got to start now. It's not time for anyone to take their ball and go home.

 

This moderation thing has got to be where it's at.  Why, even Jane Fonda moves toward the center these days, as can be seen in her comment about the explosive apartheid situation in our ally nation, Israel: "it can become counterproductive to inflame rather than explain and this means to hear the narratives of both sides..."


Carey Rowland, author Glass half-Full

 

 

New Data Puts Deaths From No Health Insurance at 45,000 Per Year


Formerly it was 18,000. I always considered that number too small. New numbers from Harvard Medical School. That works out to almost 30,000 deaths due to no health insurance since Obama and the Democrats took office.
We should consider what these numbers will be in the aftermath of any bill. Compromises translate into deaths. Just to be clear.


Testing


I am unable comment this morning on anything but my own past blog-posts. So, I'm troubleshooting as well...interesting morning at TPM.

Testing


This is only a test, I am having some computer difficulties and am testing my fixes!
Thanks for your understanding.

Weekly Mulch: Where is the Climate Change Bill?


By Raquel Brown, Media Consortium Blogger

Hopes of passing climate change legislation before the climate summit in Copenhagen are quickly dissipating, as Rachel Morris reports in Mother Jones. It seems unlikely that any major action will be taken before the December meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) originally expected all six Senate committees to allocate cap-and-trade pollution permits by September 10, and later extended the deadline to September 28. But on Wednesday, Reid signaled that the legislation might be delayed until next year. Why is climate change taking the backseat? Simply, passing a health care bill and wrestling the economy back into shape have sapped lawmakers' energy for climate change.

Read more »

Illegal Aliens: Access to Health Care System -- NO WAY


President Obama:

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken.  That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

This statement President Obama makes no sense.  Its three statements merged into one.   You don't want to give coverage to illegal aliens.  You think the immigration system is broken.  And you strongly support getting all legal citizens quality health insurance.  I'm not sure if this was intentional or just a mistake.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

This is one issue where Democrats and I part.  If we know these people are here illegally then by law we must send them back home at the very least. 

To assume that we can pick a day out of the blue and declare all illegal aliens American citizens is ludicrous.  The very next day, thousands more will cross our borders wanting the same privileges, whether or not we make that declaration that day.  What did the declaration do for America?  Absolutely nothing; Just as former president Ronald Reagan's amnesty bill did for us.  Accept to give us even more people that we are legally required to care for.  People for the most part that didn't start paying into our systems like Social Security, workmen's compensation or Medicare till later in their lives if at all.

The money we have in Social Security, Medicare, Public Aid and Medicaid was paid for by legal citizens.  If you use that money to give health care or food stamps to illegal aliens (or immigrants if you prefer), you are stealing money from legal American citizens.

If you want to increase the amount of immigrants we allow in -- then do so.  If you want put these people on a 'special' listing giving them first choice access to citizenship once they go back where they came from, let's talk about it; but don't expect me to want to give them something for nothing, especially since they broke our laws to begin by waltzing right into our country without permission.  That's no different than giving somebody that broke into my house free room and board.

Instead of giving Mexico money we should be asking for money in return for supporting their citizens in our hospitals and public aid systems. 

Hey, that's an idea.  Each time an illegal alien walks into an ER in a hospital, we take their name and report them to Mexico - demanding reimbursement for any costs incurred same goes for any other public assistance they receive.

Happy New Year To All "Shana Tova Umetukah"


Tonight, at sundown the sounds of the shofar will be heard to symbolically awaken Jews from their "slumbers" and alert them to the coming judgment.  It's Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.  (Can you believe it's 5770 I just got used to writing 5769 on my checks!)

There is a lot to be thankful for in the past year; we may be poor but we got our health and our happiness.  Barack Obama was elected, and IS our President.  Hope still springs eternal in our heart. 

But as we approach the New Year there is a great sadness and concern for our country.  As of late there has been an ill wind.  Racism, and prejudice, and hate have reared their ugly head.  They, whoever they are, have turned us against each other for their own self-interests.  It's enough to make one want to drop out, just like we have done times before.

But it's New Years.  A time to renew faith.  Renew hope.

There was a time when I produced the High Holiday services with our Rabbi.  One of my functions was to pick the readings for the services.  We would always end the Erev Rosh Hashanah service with a humorous story.  My favorite was the story of Harry and Larry, "The Optimist and the Pessimist."  As we begin this New Year it carries a special meaning...

    You may have heard the story of the little twin brothers, Hershel and Laybel; Harry and Larry.  Harry is a pessimist and Larry is an optimist.  The little pessimist was always complaining and very negative, while the optimist viewed everything through rose-colored glasses.  It was their birthday, and their father decided to test their attitudes.  He bought every kind of beautiful toy imaginable for the pessimist - a new bike, a basketball, a baseball, bat and glove and dozens of things that would make a little boy happy, but for the optimist, a pile of horse manure was to be his only gift.

    When Harry, the pessimist, saw all of his beautiful gifts, he immediately began to complain.  "If I ride this bike on the street, I might wreck it and hurt myself, and I know if I take this basketball outside, someone will probably steal it, and baseball is dangerous.   If I miss the ball with the glove it will hit me in the head and I'll probably end up hitting the ball too far and breaking somebody's window." Harry went on and on in deep negativism.  He had turned his birthday into doom and gloom.

    Then it was the little optimist's turn for his birthday present.  When Larry saw the pile of horse manure with his name on it, he enthusiastically began to run throughout the house looking in all of the rooms, in the garage, and in the backyard.  When his father caught him by the arm and asked, "Son, what are you looking for:" Larry replied, "Dad, with all of the horse manure you gave me, I just know there's gotta be a pony around here someplace!"

    In the New Year may we all find the pony we've been looking for!

"Shana Tova Umetukah;" may you all be written and sealed in the book of life for a good and sweet year.

Happy New Year.  Keep Hope alive...

Fritz


As in, comment system on the...?

Kucinich hearing: Insurance Impact on Medical Care


Jacki Schechner, formerly of CNN, and now the communications director for the non-profit group "Health Care for America Now" blogs away:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich is heading up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the impact of private health insurance companies on patients' medical care right now. He and Representative Conyers and Representative Kennedy are slaughtering private health insurance company executives. Conyers is particularly fantastic - and not just because he has cited Health Care for America Now and our reports on market consolidation, big insurance profits, and CEO compensation.

The private insurance executives are doing an excellent job of shrugging their shoulders and feigning ignorance. If you take their word (or lack of word) for it, they apparently know a whole lot of nothing about anything related health insurance reform.

CSPAN's coverage of the hearings, which I'll have to watch tonight.

Update: I'm watching over lunch. It is actually a subcommittee hearing, as Kucinich noted when recognizing full Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-NY), who spoke after Kucinich and ranking Republican member Jim Jordan (R-OH). Elijah Cummings complained about denied claimaints "waiting 'til they die", followed by John Tierney (D-MA) asking about the Medical Cost Ratio rising faster than inflation, before the first witness was questioned. Several members questioned the practice of rescission.

Witnesses:

Richard Collins - United Health Care & other posts in health and life insurance "We are already highly regulated."

Brian Sassi - Wellpoint Inc & Blue Cross CA "Changing how we finance health care without changing how we deliver health care would be incomplete reform at best."

Patricia Farrell - Aetna "Health care costs drive insurance premiums, not the other way around."

James Bloem - Humana (money man) Claimed Humana has the lowest refusal rate, while Medicare was #5.

Thomas Richards - Cigna Supports health care reform (they all support health care reform.)

Colleen Reitan - Healthcare Service Corp formerly CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield MN

Questioning starts at about the one hour mark.

McArdle's Crusade


Megan McArdle finds it funny that Nancy Pelosi is worried about political violence. I'm not sure which element tickles McArdle's funny bone. Maybe it's Pelosi's request that public officials speak responsibly. Maybe it's Pelosi's embarrassing and uncool emotional sincerity. Perhaps it's that Pelosi is soooo amazingly old that she actually remembers the Mayor of San Francisco's thigh-slappingly funny murder. (Can you imagine being that old? Silly grandma!)

McArdle has titled her comic response "There Will Be Blood," thereby establishing her credentials for highly literate snark. It follows in its entirety:

I'm not sure what Nancy Pelosi is trying to say in this video. Is she furthering the largely unsubstantiated claim that the American right is planning a reign of terror? Or is she trying to tell us that Owosso was just the beginning? Either way, this doesn't seem like it's adding much to the national conversation.


McArdle does have a remarkable talent for crowding slippery debating tactics into a limited space, a kind of spin doctor's haiku. In four sentences she's got at least two straw men, some misleading rhetorical questions, an appeal to moral equivalence: a post like this requires one an elaborate and unwholesome genius. There isn't time enough in the world to deal with every one of McArdle's pithy distortions, but I'd note the two biggest ones. First she treats Pelosi's worry about unbalanced people taking political rhetoric too seriously as a conspiracy theory about an organized "reign of terror" by "the right" as a whole. Easy to refute that one, isn't it, Megan? (That McArdle considers her own fantastic straw man only "largely unsubstantiated" is rather chilling.)

McArdle's second big move is the your-side-does-it-too riposte, familiar from school yards, street corners and protracted civil wars the world over. By bringing up the murder of a pro-life activist in Owosso, McArdle implies that it is really the liberals who are killing the conservatives, or that both sides are equally violent, or some other idea which McArdle seems to think wins her a debating point.

Of course, Pelosi did not denounce violence by the right. She denounced violence, full stop:

I wish we would all curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements and understand that some of the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statements might assume.


Pelosi's appeal to responsible speech, explicitly aimed at a universalized "we" than any specific or partisan "they," warning that overheated rhetoric can be misunderstood by the unbalanced, has immediately been taken by the conservative media as an unjust accusation against conservatives. That response speaks like a thunderclap. When saying things that excitable lunatics might misunderstand feels like a core value of your movement, your movement should disband.

In McArdle's world, of course, there is no such thing as a non-partisan statement. Pelosi says "we" and McArdle hears "you." McArdle's snark about Owosso presumes that Pelosi would not be bothered by the senseless murder of a protester on the right. But Pelosi said no such thing; it is McArdle who cannot imagine anyone mourning violence against an ideological opposite.

The question of violence has been on McArdle's mind intermittently over the last few months, including her repeated defense of people bringing guns to Obama speeches, and her thought experiment about the moral coherence of murdering abortion providers:

Now I can move onto the observation that if you actually think late-term abortion is murder, then the murder of Dr. Tiller makes total sense.


Of course, McArdle never explicitly advocates murder. She identifies herself as pro-choice. She calls bringing guns to public events "counterproductive." McArdle merely urges us to accept murder as reasonable. Not that she would ever do such a thing, of course. She simply demands that people who would, and people who have, be treated as serious contributors to the public debate. In McArdle's world brandishing a weapon, or even using that weapon to kill another human being, should not discredit one's beliefs.

This strange fixation on McArdle's part, her crusade make sure the armed and even the violent are not penalized in the public debate, helps explain her hostility to Pelosi. An appeal for responsible speech, for considering the consequences of one's words, is anathema to McArdle; she seems to believe that ideas must always be judged upon their abstract and intrinsic merits, rather than on their material consequences, and still less on the behavior of their adherents. It would offend McArdle heartily if an idea that seemed to her logical and consistent were discredited simply because its advocates were violent or anti-social. She demands that ideas be judged only as ideas, and for McArdle an idea doesn't become any less true, beautiful or good just because someone who believes in it kills someone who didn't.

Thus Pelosi's obvious emotion, the tears that unexpectedly started welling when she recalled the bloody deaths of people she had known and worked with, evidently struck McArdle as tasteless or ridiculous. That sort of thing, as Jay Gastby put it, is "only personal." And that Pelosi appealed to her own lived experience must have struck McArdle, for whom politics is a long series of seminar-room hypotheticals, as uncouth. McArdle values being "contrarian," by which she means offering logically valid arguments with surprising conclusions; these conclusions are often surprising because they are at odds with the experience of living in the world. McArdle doesn't view guns at public assemblies as dangerous, because for her guns are primarily ideas. And whether or not guns are dangerous is a question to resolve with a syllogism, before moving on to another observation.

Movement conservatives have been working hard since 1980 to build their presence on college campuses, and groom a new generation of conservative thinkers and pundits. McArdle is one of the fruits of their success: focused on winning adversarial debates, favoring abstract logic over experience and snark over sobriety, not only thriving on a polarized atmosphere but insisting on one. McArdle still argues in the ad hoc style of dorm rooms and dining halls: facile, punchy, never overly burdened by research. She is bright. But her intelligence is focused on winning games. When someone gestures to something bigger than the partisan game, she can only hear a play for partisan advantage. When Nancy Pelosi talks about avoiding violence, McArdle can only understand that as a ploy. McArdle is so blinkered cannot imagine that avoiding civil bloodshed might be valuable to people on both sides of the aisle. She cannot see what is in it for her. Megan McArdle is still a sophomore, in the most literal meaning of the word: a bright and highly-educated fool.

crossposted at http://dagblog.com


"Stabbed in the Back and Sold to Russia"


The headline from Polish paper Fakt says it all: http://www.efakt.pl/Zdrada-USA-sprzedaly-nas-Rosji,artykuly,52626,1.html The largest Czech paper said simply "No Radar, Russia Won". Way to improve those european relationships, Obama.  Smart thinking, that will surely give confidence to Ukraine and other former Soviet states. You can count on us! (To sell you out!)

Birthers/Deathers Be Careful What you Ask For


I would expect that most of the "Take Back Our Country" and the "Next Time We Bring Guns" crowd are using some hghly flammable rhetoric to ramp up the rhetoric, Most of it is basically BS rhetoric that will ultimately get ignored,

 

But I wonder if the the really far right extremists, most of whom are white, and the ones most likely to do something stupid, have looked at the racial and ethnic makeup of the U.S. Armed Forces and National Guard units lately?

I think that it would be our National Guard units and US Armed Forces that would be called upon to put down any nastiness. 

 

Not good odds.    

NYT - US 'messy' Democracy: Bad, China One Party Rule: Good


On September 9th Tom "we've turned the corner in Iraq" Friedman openly lamented our inability, unlike China, to "...impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.... from the top down."
It's true his lament comes in the broader context of exposing the GOP in 2009 as "...standing, arms folded and saying "no." " and it is, after all an op-ed.
Yet today, in the News Section(page a4) we get this from China correspondent Keith Bradsher.
He breathlessly reports "The image of laid-off workers here returning to jobs stands in sharp contrast to the United States, where even as the economy shows signs of improvement, the unemployment rate continues to march toward double digits."
Though it's clear in reading the article that China's central govt is purposely replacing one bubble (global demand) with another (domestic demand) through fiat, Bradsher wants to emphasize how well it's working now while giving short shrift to the inevitability of the coming bubble burst; "The state-controlled banking system here...unleashed $1.2 trillion in extra lending to Chinese consumers and businesses in the first seven months of this year. That money is financing everything from a boom in car sales, up 82 percent in August from a year earlier, to frenzied factory construction." Never mind that "As much as a third of the extra bank lending in China appears to have gone into real estate and stock market speculation.", stay focussed on "...the bulk has gone into investments by companies and local governments, with tangible results."
He breezes through eye-poppers like "Government agencies have been told not to buy imported goods with money from economic stimulus programs unless no domestic alternative is available." and "Beijing also has given huge tax breaks and other assistance to exporters. They include placing broad restrictions on imports and intervening heavily in currency markets to hold down the value of the renminbi, to keep Chinese exports competitive even in a weakened global economy." That looks like fodder for a whole article to me!
Only in the final paragraphs does he touch on the the dangers with "Cheap cash has a way of inflating bubbles -- just ask Wall Street -- that could damage China's economy and its banks when they pop." But ends with the oddly editorial-sounding "But such concerns are so 2008."

For more than 20 years we have pursued an illusory 'engagement' policy vis a vis China in hopes of 'changing China from the inside.' Looks like WE'RE becoming more like China instead.

A Word about Hitler, Fascism, and Health Care


When health care reform was proposed, my -- albeit limited-- memory of the opposition was that the proposals were labeled "socialist." And I don't think much happened.

I suspect that not many people around right now, thanks to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the decline of Communism worldwide, have a real concern about socialism. Certainly this group does not include people who understand the difference between -- and benefit from -- unfettered Capitalism and socialism. But most people, no longer worried that socialism will lead inevitably to the first, second and third steps down the slippery slope to Communism, just didn't care.* 

When the dire threat of "socialism" did not move people to oppose health care reform, another term or category had to be put forward in order to scare people and rally opposition. Rummaging around in the murky grab bag of historical precedent, they came up with Hitler and fascism.

Does it fit? No. Does anyone realize this? Apparently not too many.

Is it working? I guess we'll see.

*Full Disclosure: I teach history and I blame weak historical understanding for this sorry state of affairs. What must Europeans think when they hear that universal health care, which many of them provide, is fascist?   

The Entitlement of Children (or grown-ups who never grew up)


There's been a lot of talk about how racism factors into the health care reform drama, and so far the debate has focused on a) yes, people who protest reform are racist and b) no, they're not.
I've been firmly in category c) some of the protesters appear to be racist, but it's not fair to paint everyone with that brush.
Now, I'm starting to see a new category:  d) conservatives have developed an over-inflated sense of entitlement these past 8-16 years and some use racist language or imagery to lash out and re-claim a sense of their lost power.  
It's the grown-up equivalent of "Hey, I want my ball back!  Oh, yeah?  Well, you're stupid and your dad's a GARBAGEman!"

Read more »

We Have A Village Idiot In This Country: It's Called Fundamentalist Christianity


Wednesday night, after Pres. Carter's remarks identifying the racism attendant to the teabagger rally in Washington and the other virulent eruptions of the right, Rachel Maddow interviewed a fellow named Frank Schaeffer about what it all means.  She introduced the segment by pointing to some of the survey results about New Jersey "conservatives" and how many of them believe that Obama either is the antichrist or might be.  Schaeffer grew up in the "Evangelical" movement and was an influential player early on in organizing the Christian right.  Like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, Schaeffer, at a certain point had an epiphany and changed the course of his life.  He now recognizes Christian fundamentalism for what it is and does what he can to combat it's continued malignant growth.

I think Mr. Schaeffer has a great deal of wisdom to impart about the Christian right, what it's all about and why it manifests itself politically as it does.  People should listen carefully to what he has to say on this subject.

Rachel noted that about 60% of McCain voters in New Jersey do not think Obama is an American citizen.  She wondered aloud why this is and how this could be and this is what Mr. Schaeffer said:

Those of us who come from the evangelical subculture have been weaned with our mother's milk on a changing cast list of villains.  It might be Kennedy to one generation, Obama to the next, but I think the larger point this brings up is that the mainstream, not just media, but culture doesn't sufficiently take stock of the fact that within our culture we have a subculture which is literally a fifth column of insanity that is bred from birth through home school, Christian school, evangelical College, whatever to reject facts as a matter of faith.  And so this substitute for authentic, historic Christianity, and I may add a little caveat here I'm a churchgoing Christian, really brings up the question can Christianity be rescued from Christians? 

And that's an open question and when you see a bunch of people going around thinking that our President is the antichrist you have to draw one of two conclusions.  Either these are racists looking for any excuse to level the next accusation or they're beyond crazy and I think beyond crazy is a better explanation and that evangelical subculture has rotted the brain of the United States of America.  We have a big slice of our population waiting for Jesus to come back.  They look forward to Armageddon.  Good news is bad news to them.  When we talk about the Left Behind series of books that I talk about in my book Crazy for God, what we're really talking about is a group of people who are resentful because they know they've been left behind.  By modernity, by science, by education by art, by literature. 

The rest of us are getting on with our lives.  These people are standing on a hilltop waiting for the end.  This is a dangerous group of people to have as neighbors and they are our national neighbors.  And this is the source of all these insanities that we see leveled at the President, one way or another they go back to this evangelical subculture.  Uh, it's a disaster.

Rachel then went on to discuss the large numbers of self-identified "conservatives" who pay heed to the birthers and deathers, etc...  She then asked...

Q: How do you work to move people off of that position?  It doesn't seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people away from these beliefs.

You don't work to move them off this position.  You move past them. 

Look, a village cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.  It's as simple as that.  And we have to understand we have a village idiot in this country: it's called fundamentalist Christianity, and until we move past these people, and let me add as a former lifelong Republican, until the Republican leadership has the guts to stand up and say it would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot there's gonna be no end in sight.  The next thing they'll do is accuse Obama of being the antichrist and then who knows what comes next?  On and on it goes.  There is no end to this stuff.  Why?  Because this subculture has, as it's fundamentalist faith, that they distrust facts per se. 

They believe in a young earth, 6000 years old, with dinosaurs cavorting with human beings.  They think that whether its economic news or news from the Middle East it all has to do with the end of time and Christ's return.  This is La La Land and the Republican Party is totally enthralled to this subculture to the extent that there is no Republican Party.  There is a fundamentalist subculture which has become a cult.  It's fed red meat by buffoons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other people who are just not terribly bright themselves and they are talking to even stupider people.  That's where we're at.  That's where all this is coming from and it's becoming circular.  It's becoming a joke.  Unfortunately a dangerous joke because once in a while one of these looney tunes we see brings guns to public meetings.  Who knows what they do next?  It's a serious thing we all have to face but the Democrats and sane Americans just have to move past these people and say, go wait on the hilltop for the end.  The rest of us are going to get on with rebuilding our country. 

You can go to the following url which will take you to Mr. Schaeffer's website.  The clip from the Maddow show is front and center and can be watched by clicking on the link:

http://www.frankschaeffer.com/

Mr. Schaeffer knows these people and their beliefs very, very well.  He understands their mentality.  Mr. Schaeffer does not dispute that much of the vitriol for Obama comes from racism but interestingly, he thinks that racism is only a part of it and even the racism we see emanates in large part from fundamentalist Christianity.  I went and looked around on his blog and he believes that soon they may well turn to violence.  I think he may well be right.  The paranoid, sensationalist rhetoric of the right is very reminiscent of other times in the not too distant past when right wing violence sprang up.  Speaker Pelosi was warning of that today and was all but ignored by the Republican leadership.  People need to be prepared.  And we need to be prepared to smack down any further violence by the right quickly and effectively so they do not pick up anymore momentum.

 

A last word on Rep. Kevin Brady


The usual suspects roundly mocked Brady yesterday, Atrios, TPM, Sargent, Cole.

Well played.

Except I think they all missed one critical point - the literal essence of the gripe, that Brady and his anti-socialist/communist/fascist compadres were complaining that the trains weren't running on time.

O'Reilly Endorses the Public Option? Government Controlled Health Care?


It's a miracle.  Bill O'Reilly of The O'Reilly show on Fox has endorsed a public option.  While this endorsement is more than welcome, I am shocked, shocked I say, to hear it come from Mr. O'Reilly, especially since he's been fighting it since day one.

Here is what he said while discussing the issue with Nina Owcharenko a Heritage Foundation scholar:

NINA OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.

O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.

Hallelujah

I might also point out that the Republicans as a whole and blue dog Democrats have been arguing that Government (having a Public Option) should not be controlling the way our health care system is ran.   Has anybody stopped to realized that by telling the private insurance companies what they can and cannot do as far as running their business is, in fact, government controlling our health care system? 

What do you call requiring the insurance agency to cover all citizens, no matter what their pre-existing medical conditions are?  What about requiring them to have no cap on coverage amounts, isn't that government controlling the private industry?  What about telling these same companies how they must cover certain preventive care, isn't that government control?

These Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are willing to CONTROL the insurance agency and the medical provider's way of business; but with the same breath, they tell us we should not be creating a government controlled health insurance policy (public option)?


ACORN, a threat?


ACORN, a threat!

Aren't you just mad enough to shake your gucci bag at them?
After you leave your brokers office [buying euros this year?]

Enroute to your GOLD-PLATED tax advisers? Aren't you just annoyed as you drive your tax-get-away leased hummer! When the platinum plated, SWISS BANK ACCOUNT CROWD gets worked up about ACORN - I have to laugh.

Are you as worked up about YACHT toting, Mink draped, polo-riding Mercedes drivers, who are suddenly getting the news that their Swiss Bank Accounts are no longer secret? Are you worked up about that bunch too?

And when you're stashing your millions in a Bermuda Corporation offshore account drawer- do you have time to worry about some clerk in an Acorn office giving tax advise to a measely thousandaire?

I gotta wonder, are you as worked up about the Credit Suisse tax-dodgers?

I hope Senator Vitter chairs the committee to investigate these PROSTITUTION SUPPORTERS!

solidarity & peace
Rick Spisak
AveryVoice.com


Response to Stuart News L2E 9/18 -

Original

ACORN, a threat?


ACORN, a threat!

Aren't you just mad enough to shake your gucci bag at them?
After you leave your brokers office [buying euros this year?]

Enroute to your GOLD-PLATED tax advisers? Aren't you just annoyed as you drive your tax-get-away leased hummer! When the platinum plated, SWISS BANK ACCOUNT CROWD gets worked up about ACORN - I have to laugh.

Are you as worked up about YACHT toting, Mink draped, polo-riding Mercedes drivers, who are suddenly getting the news that their Swiss Bank Accounts are no longer secret? Are you worked up about that bunch too?

And when you're stashing your millions in a Bermuda Corporation offshore account drawer- do you have time to worry about some clerk in an Acorn office giving tax advise to a measely thousandaire?

I gotta wonder, are you as worked up about the Credit Suisse tax-dodgers?

I hope Senator Vitter chairs the committee to investigate these PROSTITUTION SUPPORTERS!

solidarity & peace
Rick Spisak
AveryVoice.com


Response to Stuart News L2E 9/18 -

Original

Goldstone is wrong, God bless him


I wish he weren't  But he is.

What happened in Gaza and in Siderot was not a War Crime. It was  war. There are no war criminals in the IDF. Or in Hamas.Or flying the Enola Gay. Or ordering GIs in 1944 "take these prisoners back the HQ (10 miles away) and be back in 5 minutes."

Just warriors.

In wars, warriors do things like dispatching a peace mission while the fleet's en route to Pearl Harbor, Or saturation bombing of Coventry or  Dresden. Or  dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima ; firing rockets at Siderot ; bombing a UN school filled with Gaza civilians.If it kills any one on the other side , it's not a War Crime. It's war. 

And that all too definitely includes killing civilians-what else were Bomber Harris and Curtis Lemay doing in 1944.

If not absolutely  in all wars at all times, in so many you might as well say all,  military leaders have believed, correctly,that killing civilians is probably the most effective strategy, And certainly the one that best spares its own citizens. Denying that is Cant. Or invincible ignorence..

As Prince Andre argued (and Sherman practiced) ensuring the current war inflicts grievous harm on civilians is the best way to lengthen the interval  before a new generation learns for itself the same old lessorn that War is Hell.

Killing civilians only becomes a War Crime when it decreases the chance of winning like Eichman commandering Hungarian rail roads to transport Jews to the Camps.. Not when Hitler, or Roosevelt or Stalin or Arafat or Golda Meir killed any of the enemy, civilian or military. Preferably as horribly as possible. That was just  War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Truth Shall Set you FREE!!! ( can I get an amen?)


Health care reform is going to pass.  I think we may even get some form of a public option.

The Republican Party is coming apart at the seams.  Their biggest fear is the success of this reform.  They do not know what to do and are trying to use/say anything that gets a reaction...not just from their base....from anyone.  Obviously, their base is going to react more extremely, but what they are doing is not based on actual beliefs...it is based on trying to regain/maintain power.  They are twisting in the wind and do not know what to do.  Desperate times for their party.  Eventually the moderate and extreme wings of the Republican Party are going to break apart.  I do not know what form this break will take, but it is inevitable.

Also, for those afraid a public option will increase the deficit.  You may be right.  In fact, you probably are.  The full story is the deficit will increase significantly more without the public option than with the public option.

This is the truth.  Everything else is just white noise.

David Von Drehle writes some Glenn Beck fan-fiction at Time


Over at Time Magazine, David Von Drehle gives the world a puff-piece on Glenn Beck titled "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?"

Here's a good way to tell when a story is crap - when it asks a question in the headline and then doesn't answer it. Hell, doesn't even ask it.

Anyway, Von Drehle gives Beck the hero treatment throughout the story.

Beck is 45, tireless, funny, self-deprecating, a recovering alcoholic, a convert to Mormonism, a libertarian and living with ADHD. He is a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies -- if he believed in conspiracies, which he doesn't, necessarily; he's just asking questions. He's just sayin'.

Von Drehle then goes on to list many of Beck's crazier claims, but never debunks them. Either Von Drehle felt that it wasn't important enough to the story to point out that Beck lies on a daily basis, or perhaps thought the ridiculousness of it all was self-evident. Somehow forgetting that Beck has an audience in the millions.

Von Drehle does his job as journalistic fanboy well, throughout the piece. He even gets in the necessary false equivalency between the left and right:

Between the liberal fantasies about Brownshirts at town halls and the conservative concoctions of brainwashed children goose-stepping to school, you'd think the Palm in Washington had been replaced with a Munich beer hall.

What does Von Drehle avoid mentioning?

  • The success of the ad boycott against Beck's show.
  • Beck's hero-worship of W. Cleon Skousen.
  • Beck's repeated usage of viloent rhetoric.
  • The word "racism."
  • Simply put, Von Drehle produced a piece of fan fiction on Glenn Beck and got it published in Time Magazine. To anyone who read the piece, they'd think Beck was a lovable, harmless, rascal, just shaking things up.

    Is Glenn Beck Bad for America? Who knows, Von Drehle never got around to asking.

    -WKW

    How Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Endangers Us All


    How Israel's Nuclear Arsenal Endangers Us All

    By Jeff Gates*

     

    On September 24th, U.S. President Barack Obama will preside over a U.N. Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. In March 2010, Moscow will host a Global Nuclear Summit that the U.S. has agreed to attend.

    The next six months could prove hopeful or harmful-depending on the impact on Israel's nuclear arsenal. With U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has thus far avoided compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-joining North Korea, India and Pakistan.

    President John F. Kennedy tried to stop Israel from starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a June 1963 letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, he insisted on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. Though his letter was cabled to the U.S. embassy, Ben-Gurion resigned (citing undisclosed personal reasons) before the message could be physically delivered.

    With Israel's nuclear ambitions under attack by its key ally, that strategically well-timed resignation duped an inexperienced young president and denied him a diplomatic victory that might well have precluded the wars now being waged in the Middle East.

    With Ben-Gurion's resignation, JFK was left without an Israeli government with which he could negotiate. By the time a new government was formed, the Kennedy threat had been eliminated and Tel Aviv could start haggling from scratch with successor Lyndon Johnson who was far more sympathetic to the goals of the Zionist state.

    That strategy resurfaced in the recent resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just as the Road Map gained traction and the threat of peace loomed on the horizon. Olmert's successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, then used the terms of the Road Map as a bargaining chip to start haggling-with an inexperienced young president-over sanctions against Iran.

    Democrat Lyndon Johnson proved himself a reliably pliant pro-Israeli president as did his successor, Republican Richard Nixon. Described by Prime Minister Golda Meir as "the best friend Israel ever had," Nixon agreed in 1969 to endorse "constructive ambiguity" as a means for Tel Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile Colonial Zionists brandished the threat of that arsenal to seize land they sought for Greater Israel.

    Israeli incursions provoked the reactions one would expect, enabling Tel Aviv to portray itself as a hapless victim in need of U.S. support in a hostile and anti-Semitic neighborhood. Four years after Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion, Israel mounted a massive six-day assault on neighboring nations, occupying lands that remain at the heart of the hostilities against which Tel Aviv insists it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

    With the war in Iraq poised to expand to Iran, the next six months offer a rare opportunity to revisit not only Israel's nuclear arsenal but also-in light of the consistency of its behavior over six decades-the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise.

    Managing the Threat to Zionism: JFK, RFK and Fulbright

    In 1962, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, convened hearings to ensure that the American Zionist Council-funded by the Jewish Agency-register as the agent of a foreign government. JFK was then president and brother Robert his attorney general. Edward ("Ted") Kennedy was elected to the Senate that year to fill his brother Jack's seat. In October 1963, the Department of Justice-led by Robert Kennedy-demanded that the Council register as a foreign agent.

    Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach succeeded RFK as Attorney General for Lyndon Johnson. To avoid registration, the Zionist Council morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That umbrella organization-still disguised as a domestic lobby-continues to coordinate the efforts of dozens of organizations that sustain a U.S. policy environment favorable to a foreign nation.

    The Kennedy brothers shared a little-known insight into the confidence with which Israel wields political influence across party lines. In the closing weeks of his 1960 presidential campaign, candidate Kennedy traveled to New York to seek financial support from Jewish business leaders. On his return to Washington, he called his old friend Charlie Bartlett who had introduced Jack to Jackie.

    According to Bartlett, Kennedy was livid after those he met in Manhattan assured him that the funds he sought were available but only if he turned over to them the formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle East. With brother "Bobby" his chief campaign strategist, that experience doubtless came to mind when, in 1963, JFK confirmed that Israel-while portraying itself a U.S. ally-repeatedly lied to him about its development of nuclear weapons.

    Israel vs. the Kennedys

    At the height an unpopular war in Vietnam, Robert Kennedy emerged to challenge the policies of the Texan who replaced his brother as president in 1963. No one knows for sure that, as president, RFK would have followed JFK's stance on the Zionist state's nuclear arsenal. Nor do we know for certain that he would have renewed his insistence that the Israel lobby register as the agent of a foreign government.

    When a second Kennedy threat was eliminated with an assassination in June 1968, Tel Aviv welcomed to the White House Richard Nixon who supported Israel's strategically essential "ambiguous" policy on nuclear arms. Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell was a partner in the same New York law firm (Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander) that Nixon joined in 1963 after his failed bids as president, losing to JFK in 1960, and as governor of California two years later. In honor of Nixon's arrival, the dominantly Jewish firm was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.

    In 1973, five years after RFK's death, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence that "Israel controls the U.S. Senate." By 1974, he was replaced in the Senate. Journalist Helen Thomas was then covering Nixon, one of ten presidents in her lengthy career as White House correspondent. In Obama's first press conference, she sought to clarify the ambiguity about just who posed a nuclear threat in the region. Her question for this latest Commander in Chief: which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

    In response, Chicagoan Barack Obama did the "Tel Aviv Two-Step." Rather than answer the question, he spoke about the need for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Not since then has Thomas been allowed to ask another question. Instead she was subjected to a withering barrage of personal attacks by pro-Zionist broadcasters who sought to make it appear that she-not the answer to her question-is the problem.

    At every opportunity, Tel Aviv insists that Tehran's nuclear energy program poses an "existential threat." That claim is correct though not for the reason that the Israel lobby would have Americans believe. If Israel cannot persuade the U.S. to join (or condone) an attack on Iran, some faint semblance of stability may yet be attained in the Middle East. With stability will come an opportunity to confirm the common source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 911.

    Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence to mount such a deception inside the U.S. As that fact becomes apparent, an informed American public will insist that its leadership revisit the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise along with the costs that this "special relationship" has imposed on the U.S. in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility.

    Israel is the Real Threat to Israel

    The existential threat to Israel is real but its source is not Iran. The real threat is the facts that Tel Aviv may again obscure if it succeeds in provoking yet another crisis in the region. Those facts confirm the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise as a nation state.

    The threat to Barack Obama could become existential should he act consistent with his oath of office. As yet he has shown no inclination to address the perils that this entangled alliance with Jewish extremists imposes on U.S. national security and on the prospects for peace.

    As the source of the duplicity that induced the U.S. to war becomes known, Americans will insist on accountability. Zionist fanatics may choose another course. A modern-day Masada is a nuclear possibility. With their vast arsenal (estimates range from 200 to 400 warheads), these religious extremists could preempt accountability by creating chaos worldwide while affixing blame on "Islamo" fascists in an attempt to keep their victim status plausibly intact.

    To eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed religious extremists requires that the U.S.-as Israel's key ally-isolate the Zionist enterprise, withdraw its recognition as a legitimate state and reclassify its advocates as foreign agents. That long overdue change in the legal status of the Israel lobby-first sought in 1962-will enable U.S. law enforcement to pursue its operatives for giving aid and comfort to an enemy within.

    The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Those who seek peace in the region must boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and insist on sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. Anything less will ensure that Zionist extremists continue to endanger us all.

    *Jeff Gates: A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide.

     

    Is Michael Savage trying to buy goodwill with sudden charitable donations?


    I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is yes.

    Faithful readers and Savage fans will recall that Savage has been going through a bit of a rough spell lately, what with being banned from Britain by the former British Home Secretary, his legal loss to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, his legal loss (on First Amendment grounds, no less) to Brave New Films, resulting in a public apology and his recent dumping by his former radio flagship station, KNEW in San Francisco.

    Then there was the very embarrassing dissing by his son, Russell Weiner, when young Russ (at least publicly) distanced himself and his company, Rockstar Beverages, from any of his father's comments. To further the point, Russell and Rockstar apparently made donations to some gay rights groups, I guess to show they're down with the LGBT community.

    So now, it appears as though Savage is taking a page from his son's book.

    Yesterday I wrote about the $50,000 that Savage is donating to the California Association of Highway Patrolmen Widows and Orphans' Trust Fund, and why the fund should refuse the donation.

    Today a press release comes from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, stating that Savage and his organization, the Paul Revere Society, have donated $25,000 to help the organization save elephants in Malawi.

    Malawi?

    "IFAW is thankful for the Paul Revere Society which has generously supported IFAW's work to help elephants in Malawi," said Chris Cutter of IFAW.

    Huh.

    The reason I suspect this is part of a thinly disguised plan to buy Savage some goodwill is twofold: first, Savage hardly ever talks about the donations he makes, let alone sends out press releases.

    Second, the releases are nearly identical, indicating a concerted campaign has begun.

    Here's the first paragraph of the release announcing the gift to the orphans and widows' fund:

    The Paul Revere Society and Dr. Michael Savage, Syndicated radio host, noted author of over 20 books and Director of the Paul Revere Society has donated the generous sum of $50,000.00 to the California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) Widows and Orphans' Trust Fund.

    And here's the first paragraph of the release announcing the animal protection donation:

    The Paul Revere Society and Dr. Michael Savage, Syndicated radio host, noted author of over 20 books and Director of the Paul Revere Society have donated $25,000.00 to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

    Hmmm.

    Here are a couple of more paragraphs from the animal protection release:

    The Paul Revere Society is a patriotic organization, with a core charter calling for the protection of this country's Borders, Language & Culture. Its Director, Dr. Michael Savage, is best known for his syndicated radio show "The Savage Nation". Its audience ranges from 8 to 10 million listeners on close to 400 stations across America, making it the 3rd largest radio talk show in the country.

    It is Dr. Savage's sincere hope that this $25,000.00 donation will assist the IFAW in their global efforts to help animals in distress. The Paul Revere Society and Dr. Savage pledged the money to the IFAW in June 2009.

    And some select paragraphs from the widows and orphans donation:

    The Paul Revere Society is a patriotic organization with a core charter for the protection of this country's Borders, Language & Culture. Its Director Dr. Michael Savage is best known for his syndicated radio show "The Savage Nation". Its audience, ranges from 8 to 10 million listeners on close to 400 stations across America, making it the 3rd largest radio talk show in the country.

    It is Dr. Savage's sincere hope that this current donation of $50,000.00 will help aid the families of those that have paid the ultimate price in service of California's citizens. The Paul Revere Society and Dr. Savage pledged the money to the CAHP Trust Fund in June 2009.

    Several months ago Savage hired a British PR firm that promised to get his name in the papers on a daily basis. While that hasn't happened, it's clear they've been busy brainstorming over ways to burnish his image.

    But seriously, couldn't you guys come up with some original copy for the second release? I'm sure you're getting a nice hefty retainer; the least you could do is spend Savage's listeners' money wisely.

    And for the record, I believe the IFAW should return the $25,000 to Savage, for the same reasons I believe the trust fund should do so. The stench associated with the money is not worth it, Let's face it, his own son has disavowed the statements Savage has made. His own son!

    You know,  Columbian drug lords built hospitals in their communities. But they were still scumbags.

    Keep the faith.

    U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR US AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT


    U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE UMBRELLA FOR U.S AND EUROPE FIZZLES AND NEO-CONS LAMENT

                                                                              By

                                                                       Joseph Chez

     September 17, 2009

    Today, President Obama announced that the missile defense umbrella that was to be set up for the protection of our European allies and for the homeland will not be put into place due to cost-saving measures and the understanding that present U.S. capability is enough to deter the threat of any missile attack from Iran. 

    Yet, a fundamental questioned remains; whether the Bush Administration's assertion of an imminent missile attack on Europe or the US, by a crazed-nuclear Iran, was a credible threat or deserving a U.S. missile defense system for Europe, even when European nations were skeptical of the need for such missile defense umbrella?   

    First, Iran has no real beef with Europe other than being seen as a follower of the US in its attempt to have the UN further impose economic sanctions.  So, does it make sense that Iran would threaten Europe or the US with a nuclear missile attack, and would that be prudent and/or a proportional response to economic sanctions?  Many experts believed not, as supported by the (IC) intelligence community and the consistent European skepticism of the Iranian threat.  Second, the Iranian missile technology is limited in range and rather imprecise.  Their indigenous technology is based on scud missile technology provided by the North Koreans and at present, it still lacks precision strike capabilities.  In fact, just recently, the Pentagon acknowledged that Iran's capability was previously overrated and that even though Iran is making progress, it does not pose a significant threat to our nation.   

    However, the untold story of this foreign policy folly is that neo-cons in the Bush Administration wanted the missile defense shield in Europe for reasons totally unrelated to the security of the United States or Europe.  It is no secret that Israel wanted the Iranian nuclear threat to be seen as imminent and real in order to rally sympathy or support for an impending Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.  It is also not a secret that the neo-con soaked Bush Administration also wanted to beef-up our strike capabilities around the world - and this was widely supported by the military industrial complex. But it does not end there; what still remains under the cover of classified information, is that neo-cons from the Vice President's office of the Bush Administration, then put in place a policy of containment of Russia, in the event Russia was to decide to pose a threat to American oil interest in the former Soviet break-away provinces located in the Caspian Sea, such as Kazakhstan, or Azerbaijan. 

    But a foot note to history: in 1983 then student at Columbia, Barack Obama, wrote for his campus newspaper in his article, "Breaking the War Mentality" decrying the "military industrial interest."   In the same article, young Barack proposed for the elimination of all global nuclear arsenals.  Today President Obama took us one step closer to such desirable dream and RESETING our foreign policy.  Regrettably, neo-cons in Congress lamented the termination of the missile umbrella program, but immediately sounded the alarm from the threat of Iran's potential terror against our nation.  Of course, the expected Republican response was piggy-backed by Fox News broadcasting breaking news that Iran had now become capable of building atomic weapons.   

    Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. once wrote: "He (Richard Nixon) is the kind of politician who would cut down a redwood tree, then mount the stump and make a speech for conservation."  Today, Nixon's spirit lives in the Republican mantra.  

    Bewail ye neo-cons.

     

     

     

     

    The Correct Perspective on the Anti-Healthcare Crowd


    http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/

     

    Even my redneck friends around here want universal healrhcare.

    Time to BOYCOTT TV News?


    All of them, (except Keith and Rachel, and Rick Sanchez, maybe Andy Cooper, too) seem quite pre-disposed to enabling the teabaggers with free publicity.  Of course, Bill Moyers belongs on that list, too, but we all know where he is moving to;  THE BLOGS!
    But I must admit, it would be no big change for me, with those aforementioned three exceptions,  I get all my headlines online, from TPM, Huffpost, FDL, Alternet and other websites with real opinions from talking brains, not talking heads.
    And that includes wide variety of contrasting opinions in the comments sections and from some of the personal bliogs, and not just a spoonfed version of the most pupil-dilating fluff the MSM can concoct because they consider us all as stupid as their lowest common denominators.
    So it will  be no big deal for me to boycott Fox and the rest of the zoo animals, I blocked them years ago.  But it might be interesting to see what happens if a few million people just quit tuning in the mainstream BS and depended as many of us already do, solely on web-based news.
    BOYCOTT TV NEWS!  Hurt them in their pocketbooks, that's the only thing that might change their stupid, slanted perspective, packaged for the Fox-fanatic knuckledraggers as some sort of lowest common denominator.

    Viva la Blogs!

    Stand Up Bob Dole, John Warner, Trent Lott, Sam Nunn, George Mitchell, George HW Bush


    The Republican Party is going to pot, literally, and they are taking the rest of the nation DOWN with them.  They'd rather fight then switch sort of speak.  They've seemed to have decided it's war time.

    Members of their Party are coming to political rallies with guns and hate posters, yelling out "You Lie" to the president of United States during a speech to a joint session in Congress and calling for the death of our President.

    The Republican leadership in Congress today basically made fun of the Speaker of the House for asking her comardes to tone down their voices, asking people to calm down a bit so as not to end up with tragic events such as that during the 70's in San Francisco, California with Harvey Milk being killed.  Milk and Mayor Moscone were both killed back then, what came after was just plain terrible for that part of our nation.  The murderer got off with about five years jail time.  At one point 61 police officers and 100 rioters and gay residents of the Castro had been hospitalized. City Hall, police cruisers, and parts of the city was damaged to the tune of over a million dollars.

    Are there any respectable Republicans left that believes in the Democratic way of governance?  Or have they all decided to convert to fear mongering, name calling, denying the president is even the president, even to the point of threatening violence by bringing guns to presidential rallies?

    Somebody needs to ask where George HW Bush's, the Bob Dole, John Warner, Trent Lott, George Mitchell and Sam Nunn are on this issue?  Why haven't they and other elders like them stepped out from their seclusion and told their fellow comrades to 'curb it' -- stop this nonsense talk and do it now? 

    Are there any grown ups left in the Republican Party or have they all bent over for the bullies in their neighborhoods?

    Did Bill O'Reilly REALLY say this???


    " I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks."

    ????

    No, I didn't find this on The Onion ... 

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

    Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/bill-oreilly-backs-public_n_290658.html

    Jimmy Carter's Latest Sanctimonious Publicity-Stunt


    Historians consistently rank "Jimmy" Earl Carter as one of the worst US Presidents of the Twentieth Century, worse even than George W. Bush on the three polls which included both of them, and the consensus attitude is that Carter was a chump whose legacy is national humiliation in Iran and runaway inflation at home.

    Now this chump of a President and self-appointed Sunday-School Teacher to the World (TM) has added mind-reading to the list of his bogus "talents" and pronounced that...

    "...an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American."

    This all-purpose cover for Obama's selling out everybody except a few billionaire bankers was quickly echoed by sleazy proponents of "identity" politics like the despicable M.J. Rosenberg of TalkingPointsMemo, who announced that "in Obama's case, 99% of the criticism is race based."

    99%!

    So all you progressive or liberal "racists" who were even thinking about criticizing our Dear Leader should just shut the fuck up and drink the koolaid!

    And that includes you, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, with your crazy racist claims that Obama once pledged to "dump" the Patriot Act... and it gets even worse!

    Obama justifies keeping nearly all of Bush's terror war provisions in place with the standard rationale that the government must have all the weapons needed to deal with the threat of terrorism, even legally and constitutionally dubious weapons. That, of course, was the Bush and Cheney stock line.

    Racist! (But isn't this great photo anyway? I love that guy!)

    And that also includes those Ku Klux Klan vipers at Black Agenda Report, which is featuring this screaming "racist" headline...

    Distracting, Dissembling, Disappointing; Barack is Back!

    Why don't they just call him "uppity," and quit trying to find excuses to hate him?

    Other prominent "racist" scumbags who pretended to be progressives but finally showed their real bigotry by criticizing Barack Obama include David Sirota at OpenLeft, and Matt Taibbi, with his foaming-at-the-mouth "racist" claim that Obama and Rahm Emanuel accepted a "Big Bribe" from Big Pharma, and Robert Scheer, just another loony crypto-racist who pretends that...

    Obama "has blundered into a deepening quagmire in Afghanistan, has continued the Bush policy of buying off Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them and is now on the cusp of bargaining away the so-called public option..."

    Racist!

    Racists everywhere!

    ...except for Jimmy Carter, M.J. Rosenberg, Barack Obama, and Eric Holder, who "told it like it ain't" about this "nation of cowards," where hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers once sacrificed their lives to abolish slavery.

    Is Boehner a Coward?


    The article below is from the Center for American Progress by my good friend Scott Lilly.  It provides persepctive that has been absent this past week.

     

    Boehner's Unfortunate Choice

    john boehner SOURCE: AP/Lauren Victoria Burke

    Congressman John Boehner's (R-OH, above) defense of Congressman Joseph's Wilson's (R-SC) behavior during the president's speech last week shows a higher obligation to a colleague instead of the institution he has sworn to defend.

    By Scott Lilly | September 16, 2009

    Probably one of the most difficult moments during Congressman Joseph Moakley's (D-MA) 74 years on this earth was while he was presiding over the House of Representatives on May, 15, 1984. His close friend and mentor, Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA), gave Moakley the gavel and went into the well of the House to excoriate Congressman Newt Gingrich of Georgia for using political tactics O'Neill believed unbecoming of the body and destructive to the House's ability to conduct fair and civil debate.

    But O'Neill grew very emotional and carried his rebuke too far. He stated, "in my opinion, what you and your colleagues have done, what you"--he pointed to Gingrich--"have done, was the lowest thing I have ever seen in 35 years of politics." Congressman Trent Lott of Louisiana immediately jumped to his feet to object that the rules of the House had been violated and that the speaker's words "be taken down," which means that they should be stricken from the record and that the individual who used them be barred from further participation in debate for the day on which the offense occurred.

    It was up to Moakley to rule on whether his friend should be rebuked. While he was very much opposed to ruling against the speaker he sought the advice of the parliamentarian, an officer of the House who advises the chair on the precedents of the House and whether a ruling would be consistent with previous rulings in the history of the institution.

    The parliamentarian was unequivocal--the speaker's words were in clear violation of House rules. Moakley argued that what the speaker had said was in fact true. The parliamentarian countered that the presiding officer of the House could not determine the veracity of charges made within the chamber and that characterizations of another member's conduct such as that made by the speaker lowered the standards of debate and decorum. Worse, if not rebuked it would become a future precedent for the standards of floor debate.

    Reluctantly, Moakley picked up the gavel, ruled against his friend and ordered the words stricken from the record--the first time in the history of the House that a speaker had received such a rebuke.

    Moakley's difficult but correct choice stands in sharp contrast to the outrageous stance taken by House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and others who attempted yesterday to defend the indefensible conduct of Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina who not only used the House floor to call the President of the United States a liar--a violation of the rules under any set of circumstances--but did so while the president was speaking to a joint session of Congress.

    Boehner to his credit attempted to get Wilson to apologize to the House for his outburst, but then reversed himself when the resolution disapproving of the conduct came to the floor yesterday. The floor leader's failure to defend the institution in which he serves was appalling. His arguments for doing so could only be called pathetic.

    He called the measure a "partisan stunt" despite the fact that it was supported by one of Wilson's own South Carolina Republican colleagues, Bob Inglis, who saw little choice on the matter since he himself had ruled members out of order for less blatant violations of House rules when his party was in the majority. Boehner also argued that the House should not take time to discuss the matter while issues such as health care were before the country, and he seemed to think no one would remember that he and his colleagues had spent the entire summer attempting to filibuster the appropriation bills in order to delay the health care debate for as long as possible.

    But his most egregious argument was that Wilson's apology for rude behavior to the president somehow rectified the damage that Wilson had done to the rules and standards of civility of the institution in which he serves. Given that it was widely reported that Boehner attempted to persuade Wilson to apologize to the House for his gaffe he obviously does not himself believe that argument. But Boehner, like Joe Moakley a quarter of a century ago, had to decide whether he had a higher obligation to a colleague or the institution he has been sworn to defend.

    The seriousness of the offense that Boehner was asked to judge was far greater and the courage required to confront the offender was far less given the discomfort Moakley must have felt in ruling against the man who had given him the gavel. Nonetheless Boehner got it wrong.

    John Boehner is not naturally mean-spirited, divisive, or comfortable with the kind of behavior that Wilson displayed last week. He--unlike others who have served his party in leadership positions since Bob Michel left the House--has in the past demonstrated serious legislative ability and a capacity to reach across the aisle and fashion compromises when the national interest required it. It is unfortunate that he now leads a group that will not allow him to use those skills and in which he has to portray himself as being something quite different from the congressman and legislative leader he might have otherwise become.

    Scott Lilly is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He previously served as clerk and staff director of the House Appropriations Committee and executive director of the Joint Economic Committee.

    Critics rave for 'Health Care in B&W' !


    "Health Care in Black & White" will premiere here at 6 p.m. Eastern Saturday night, but the critics are already raving!

    WHAT CRITICS ARE SAYING

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "... a taut sci-fi-drama-suspense-thriller-political-love story that will make you laugh out loud!"
    -- Mipperc R. Cord, New York Postal

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "Two latex-gloved thumbs up!"
    -- Ecrim o Rppcrd, At the Flickies

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "Jimmy Stewart and Peter Sellers enliven the screen as if they weren't dead!"
    -- Crimp Redcrop, LA Old Times

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "... a high-contrast salvo in the battle for health care"
    -- Cmdr Roc Peipr, Stars and Bars

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "... a lyrical, liberal vision of the past, present and future"
    -- Doc Mcripprer, USA Yesterday

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "Filmmaker Ripper McCord is the new D. W. Griffith!"
    -- McRipp Corder, TPM Bistro

    ✯✯✯✯✯ "'Health Care in Black & White' is a transfusion of fun!"
    -- Gene Shalit, Today Show

    ✯ "Don't let your children see this!"
    -- Michael Medved, Discovery Institute


    Watch the trailer on Youtube now. (Hit the little HQ button below the vid for even more big-screen excitement!)

    Weekly Immigration Wire: Race to the Bottom


    By Nezua, Media Consortium Blogger

    The immigration debate seems to be rushing forward on its own timetable--and without a structured frame to guide it, the effort is damaged from the start. As Rev. Luis Cortés, Jr., of Esperanza USA said during a call with media members yesterday, Democrats and Republicans are "running toward the harshest positions to show they can be the hardest on those who are the weakest."



    Read more »

    Where Is It, Tom?


    WingnutsTom Bevan, one of the resident wingnuts at the Real Clear Politics Blog posts this beaut...

    Gibbs says it. The White House blogs it. The Huffington Post leads with it.

    On a day when news breaks that the administration is making a major change in U.S. foreign policy, until minutes ago the Huffington Post was leading with this:

    huffpo0917

    He concludes by scolding HuffPo for missing "the most important news of the day."

    So, I sent an e-mail to Mr. Bevan.

    bevan

    Remember?

    Drudge

    If I get an answer, I'll share it with you.

    Start holding your breath... now.

    NOW IN VIDEO!!! DJ Reasons VS Ernie Anastos: Keep F---in' That Chicken REMIX!!!


    The 4 Reactions Health Care Propaganda Relies On


    Part 2 of a Series: How Angry Citizens Become Tools of Republican Propaganda.  (See Part 1 here.)


    Angry Health Care Town Hall Aug 2009 (Chris Gardner, Getty Images)

    Angry Health Care Town Hall Aug 2009


    The national health care debate is a great example of propaganda influencing how people think about an issue. How is it that so many people can have their passions whipped into a frenzy about something, and not realize that they have been intentionally led into that state of being?

    To understand such broad-scale manipulation of feelings and opinion, we have to first understand how we interact with information presented to us. This harkens back to Walter Lippmann's quote in my last post: that we react not to the world around us, but to a representation of the world. To pictures, in Lippmann-speak. The way we imagine the world based on those pictures determines how we will react to it.

    We react to the world as we perceive it through our senses, out of which we form our impressions and thoughts: our mental picture of what we are dealing with. And we react not merely to the stimulus as such, but to what it evokes within us, and the pictures we associate with that. Who has not felt an upwelling of emotion when a song played, and reminded them of a certain someone? Or been disturbed - pausing, tensely alert - when hearing an unexpected noise outside? We feel things before we respond to them rationally, whether that feeling is simply registering a sensation, or a full-blown emotion.

    What comes in to the space between our ears - whatever path it takes to get there - affects us in many ways. It is often unnoticed, because this manner of intake is pretty much the only way we humans can interface with the world around us. We are like fish who do not notice the water we swim in. So pervasive is this sea of input that we become oblivious to just how much we take in every day and how it affects us and our moods, thoughts, and mental state. We are generally blind to the nuances of that input unless we are paying special attention to it at a given moment.

    So where does that leave us as social, political animals? It leaves us subject to the emotional resonance of what we take in in our world of affairs. How things come to us, how they are presented, has a profound impact on our perceptions and thoughts. That impact can evoke powerful emotions or subtle associations that color our thinking. We are thinking creatures, but we are also feeling creatures. Not surprisingly, emotions usually underlie whatever rational conclusions we come to.

    Our Enlightenment Heritage

    The Thinker, by Rodin  (Nicolas Perez, Wikimedia Commons)

    The Thinker, by Rodin (Nicolas Perez, Wikimedia Commons)

    Rational thought has been an ideal for the mature American adult in public discourse since the Enlightenment Age era of our Founding Fathers. The ideal for the rational thinker is to ask the right questions about a topic, research it with facts from sources as unbiased as possible, then on the basis of that information (and, if appropriate, some ethical or moral values as underpinning), form an opinion that is supported by the facts as we know them.

    In perverse reality, people almost always feel an emotional reaction to a subject first, then cobble together a rationale that justifies that feeling. That is, they do the Rational Thinker process in reverse: first the emotion-based opinion, then reasoning backwards to a premise and cherry-picked facts that can plausibly support that stance.

    This is a very human response and a very common one - but it is intellectually sloppy. It results in muddy thinking about issues on the basis of partial knowledge and misinformation presented (or invented) by whatever sources bolster the emotion-based stance. This is the perfect recipe for flawed conclusions stemming from faulty logic and missing facts.

    Such a result is ideal for ideologues and partisans who want to "activate the base." But it is a disaster for reality-based policy work and anyone who hopes to evolve real solutions to problems that confront our nation.

    The Emotional Process Propaganda Relies On

    People who want to sway how others think, and propagandists in particular (who do this with a vengeance), intentionally exploit our emotional reactions. They count on the fact that when an emotional resonance has been hooked, at least four critical things happen[1]:

    • We will probably not notice this with our conscious, logical (critical) mind. People are more inclined to react first, and think later.
    • We go by default into a reaction mode that, properly prodded, lets one emotion cascade into another: a worrisome assertion evokes fear which stirs anger or outrage. Once we are in the grip of this cycle, our critical brain effectively checks out of the argument.
    • If we have been whipped up enough emotionally, we will want to relieve our emotional tension by taking physical action. Propagandists know how to direct that urgency for action into channels beneficial for the propagandists' purpose.
    • We will rationalize how we feel. In a process called "motivated reasoning," we will pick and chose factoids from what we know that support how we feel, and ignore evidence to the contrary or rationalize its significance away.

    The process of hooking an emotional reaction can be very subtle. Indeed, in the beginning it generally must be subtle, because we are not yet emotionally reactive, and many (though not all) of us will logically question overtly outrageous claims or exhortations. But subtle opening volleys can easily get in under our radar even if we are on guard against this sort of thing. A simple example is how we respond to survey questions, which, not coincidentally, can also be used to influence how people think about a topic (see discussion of "push polls" here.[2])

    A Single Word Can Influence Our Reaction

    Pollsters and social scientists know that how a question is worded has a huge impact on how it is answered. Ethical pollsters take great pains to ask neutral questions. Changing just one word or phrase in a question can yield substantially different results in the responses to it. For instance, asking "Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq?" gets one set of responses; asking "Do you favor or oppose the war in Iraq as a means of fighting terrorism?" garners another.  Terrorism evokes emotional reactions, and when the war is framed that way, more respondents say they favor the war.

    Obviously, then, questions and statements that resonate with emotional responses can be used to bypass our more critical thought processes. This is not to say people don't weigh a question in their minds. It is to say that what they weigh and how they assess it can be influenced by how the subject is presented. Ask someone to comment on a skewed picture of a fact, and they will focus on the skewed picture, not the underlying fact (and probably not even notice the skew, depending on their personal biases.)

    In this way, discussions are subtly (and not so subtly) controlled by the person who establishes the framing: that is, how an issue is defined, how it is presented, and what words (hence, emotional reactions) describe it.

    In part 3 of this series, I'll look at the work of Frank Luntz, and how his strategy memo created for Republicans framed the language - and, intentionally, the emotional reactions - which define our present discussion of health care reform.

    _______________

    NOTES

    1. See generally Propaganda and Persuasion (Jowett and O'Donnell 1999) and Age of Propaganda: the everyday use and abuse of persuasion (Pratkanis and Aronson 2001) in Sources.

    2. For a recent and very overt example of a push poll question (one intended to lead public thought in a certain direction), the Republican National Committee has provided us with this example from their fundraising survey distributed earlier this year. Although masquerading as a legitimate survey, and producing results that might (and probably will) be quoted as poll results, this instrument is actually what is called an "involvement device." (See comments here for discussion.)  Its purpose is to engage readers' concerns enough that they are roused to action (see bullet points above about creating a need for action) and contribute to the cause, in this case the RNC. Most of the questions in the survey are slanted, but this is the most outrageous:

    "It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"

    (The complete survey is here.)

    This particular piece of chicanery was so egregious that when questioned, the RNC felt it necessary to actually apologize for it, calling it "inartfully worded." One wonders what the artful way is to word such questions as that.

    SOURCES

    Bardes, Barbara A., Mack C. Shelley, and Steffen W. Schmidt. "American Government and Politics Today 2008: The Essentials." Google Books, 2008.

    Begley, Sharon. "Lies of Mass Destruction: Why We Believe Lies, Even When We Learn the Truth." Newsweek, August 25, 2009.

    Cawiser, Sheldon R., and G. Evans Witt. "20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results." National Council on Public Polls, 2009.

    Jowett, Garth S., and Victoria O'Donnell. "Propaganda and Persuasion."  Google Books, 1999. 

    Pratkanis, Anthony, and Eliot Aronson. "Age of Propaganda: the everyday use and abuse of persuasion."  Google Books, 2001.

    Weigel, David. "RNC: Our Survey Was 'Inartfully Worded'." The Washington Independent, August 27, 2009. 

    ------. "RNC's Health Care Survey." The Washington Independent, August 27, 2009.

    The Ghost of Medgar Evers


    As early as 1955, Evers' activism made him the most visible civil rights leader in the state of Missisippi. As a result, he and his family were subjected to numerous threats and violent actions over the years, including a firebombing of their house in May 1963. At 12:40 a.m. on June 12, 1963, Evers was shot in the back in the driveway of his home in Jackson. He died less than a hour later at a nearby hospital.

    Evers was buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery, and the NAACP posthumously awarded him their 1963 Spingarn Medal. The national outrage over Evers' murder increased support for legislation that would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Immediately after Evers' death, the NAACP appointed his brother Charles to his position. Charles Evers went on to become a major political figure in the state; in 1969, he was elected the mayor of Fayette, Mississippi, becoming the first African-American mayor of a racially mixed Southern town since the Reconstruction.

    http://www.biography.com/articles/Medgar-Evers-9542324

     

     

    Medgar Evers


    The damn studio was hot, AGAIN. Three times this year the AC is on the blitz. Fuck em. Who the hell do they think they are dealing with. Three hours a day. I have enough to contend with.

     

    Caller from Columbus:   If those fat head liberals think I'm gonna let my grandkids on that bus with those animals, those frickin monkeys, they got another thing comin. I have had it. Those commies on the supreme court put my grandkids on that bus with those animals. I have had it. I aint gonna take it anymore.

     

    Limbo:   "We need segregated buses. ... [I]n Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering 'yeah, right on, right on, right on. Racism is genetic; the blacks are just as much racists as the whites. It is inbred folks, and nothing is goin to change that. If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable?"  Read it at Media Matters

     

    Caller:  You are goddarn right rusher. And this Osama, I mean can you imagine that muslim nazi in OUR WHITE HOUSE. I am going to do everything I can to see him rot in hell. You know we are not powerless rusher. We have hundreds of thousands, hell millions who are going to stand up for what this country is all about. We have guns and camps and munitions when THEY come for us.

    Limbo:   LIMBAUGH: Wait just a second now [...] Marxist, socialist, fascist, yes. I never called him a Nazi. That's what his people are calling us. Nazi is a bad word but is Obama a fascist? You bet he is. He wants us all to march in step. He will not allow debate.  http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/09/16#0029

    Caller:     Just between us white guys, we built this country just like that there Pat Buchanan says. Monkeys did not build this country. Us white guys did. Our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers. That's who built this country. It twernt no Mexicali for sure. Hell, Mexicali's can barely handle adobe--which is nothing but sand and gravel really. Hell not much more advanced than the cave men rusher.


    LIMBOO: The president of the United States is sitting here and promoting this division. He is encouraging it. He has people in the White House: "Eh, we don't think it's so much race and so forth," but he could put a stop to this and should. If Barack Obama wants to be the president that he told everybody he was going to be during the campaign, he needs to schedule a speech -- not five appearances on Sunday shows and Letterman. He needs to schedule a speech and say, "Stop this stuff. This is not productive, this is not helping America, this is dividing America." He needs to say, "I know there is criticism of me and I know there's opposition to me. There have been criticism of every president. There's been opposition to every president." But I guess all of a sudden now, we're not allowed to do that anymore. We can't criticize Obama. We can't do that, because it's all racist, but he needs to stand up and make a speech. And he needs to say, "We are going to heal these racial divisions." If he were the real deal, folks, he would do this speech, telling the American people and the media and everybody to knock this racial stuff off, that he can handle the criticism. He was supposed to be the end of all this, and instead what we have now is his party pushing the notion that all the opposition to Obama is rooted in racism.

    I mean, how far have we come? How Orwellian the establishment has become? Any criticism of Obama's political agenda is pronounced blatant racism, but a school bus full of black kids beating up a solitary white kid couldn't possibly be racism. How Orwellian has all this gotten?

    I have serious concerns about today's media and their new standard, which is this: Any criticism of an African-American's policies, or statements, or misstatements is racist and that's it. Therefore, the question: Can this nation really have an African-American president? Or will the fact that we have an African-American president so paralyze politically correct people in the media that the natural scrutiny and process through which all of our presidents are put through and vetted do not occur because of the fear in the state-controlled media of themselves being called racist and the desire to be able to call everyone else racist?

     

     

    The room suddenly became dark. The phones dead and the electricity off.

     

    What the fuck is this, Limbo screamed. But there was no response.

     

    Where is that goddamn Spritzer when you need him. The money I pay that jackass, really....

     

    Suddenly a specter appeared as if from a holographic machine. First it arose out of nowhere as a spot in the center of the  room and then it began to grow, looming right in front of him.

     

    HOLY JESUS, the talk radio host yelled out.

     

    You will sit and listen, cried the specter.

     

    His heart was pounding, the sweat pouring down from his scalp, rivleting down his fat cheecks. My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

     

    God. You have the gonads to cry out to God. Since when did God ever have anything to do with your philosophy?

     

    I...I...I am a godfearing man. I swear. I have stood up for the rights of the ministry when liberals were persecuting...

     

    YOU WILL SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN.

     

    The rusher felt a sharp pain in his chest. He could barely breathe and his head was stinging. He had been struck mute. Never having gone a full ten minutes without speech in his entire life, fear gripped him like it had never gripped him before.

     

    I am from what I had thought was another time and place. The river, the river you know. You ever go fly fishing rusher? You find 'a spot' and yet as you step into the water and step out and back in again, you never are really 'in' the same river.

     

    I thought I came from another time, another place. Like the water in the river, time flows. It ebbs and flows so that even in the same place, somethings have changed.

     

    And yet, as I step into this muddy swamp where the water has stopped flowing all together. Your pool is stagnant and reeks of dead things; of decomposition.  Your very mind stinks like a bloated and dead body in a closet built of sin and corruption and lies.

     

    I come from a time where souls like me were put in the back of the bus.

    I come from a time where the sign said: No coloreds allowed

    I come from a time where the sign read: No coloreds need apply

    I come from a time where the sign read: Take ye and drink unless thou art colored.

    I come from a time when a rope was readied for the colored ogler of a white girl's shams.

    I come from a time where the barracks for the mighty warriors of this country were marked 'colored' & 'white"

    I come from a time where the colored's were denied the vote.

    I come from a time where the colored's were denied attorneys.

    I come from a time where the colored's were denied parole for made-up sins because they were too good at the forced labor.

    I come from a time where 'nigger' was the right and proper sobriquet for 10% of the citizenry in this 'free country.

     

    You have denied this ever took place.

    You would deny that I took a bullet in the back of my head tryin to change my lot and the lot of tens of millions who suffered in bondage for four hundred years, de jure and de facto.

    You have denied the accomplishments of the negro race in this country.

    You have denied the pain, the gnashing of teeth, the injustice that are part and parcel of this nation.

     

    I had thought things would change over a period of  five decades.

    I thought the voices of the demagogues would become muted.

    I thought there had arrived unto the scene new voices of reason.

    I thought that justice would be the one goal of this entire country

    I thought that this nation would shoot a new beacon through the stratosphere proclaiming a new age.

     

    I have no more to tell you but I have this message from Our Heavenly Father as quoted from that famous thespian, Samuel Jackson:

     

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

     

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     Mary Travers of the popular folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary died after a years-long battle with leukemia. She was 62. In the early '60s, Travers joined Peter Yarrow and Noel "Paul" Stookey to make music that mixed acoustic guitars with liberal politics. Their version of the Pete Seeger song "If I Had a Hammer" became a civil-rights anthem, and they performed the song at the 1963 March on Washington. The band recorded several Top 10 albums, and scored a No. 1 hit with "Leaving on a Jet Plane." The trio continued performing together until just a few years ago, when Travers was no longer able to perform because of her illness. Peter and Paul didn't sing her part, and were delighted when the audience would sing it for them.
    Read it at Associated Press

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW6NVcqcRVE




    I miss my Blessed Mary.

     

    UPDATE: NY Times Irresponsibly Fans Flames On Behalf Of Coke, Pepsi, and the Republicans! Scares People When Health Insurance Reform Is On Everyone's Minds


    A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a post discussing an astroturf group that was peddling its wares on TPM.  (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/azpaull/2009/09/hey-tpmers-dont-you-wanna-be-a-1.php)  The soft drink industry is stirring up opposition to a potential tax on sugary sodas (and other non-diet drinks).  However, there is NO PENDING PROPOSAL to do so, and they are stirring up these fears at a time when people are debating health insurance reform.  I predicted that the Republicans would latch on to this red herring as the next in their long line of b.s. scare tactics.

    The New York Times has now taken up the torch for this artificially-carbonated non-issue.  With the incendiary - and FALSE - headline of  Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated, and lead paragraph stating "The debate over a tax on sugary soft drinks -- billed as a way to fight obesity and provide billions for health care reform -- is starting to fizz over", the NY Times is doing what even the Republicans apparently couldn't stomach.

    Who do you think is debating when you read that headline and lede?  Of course.  Congress. 

    Heck, the 2nd paragraph misleadingly cherry picks Pres. Obama's comments to further the false implication.   To compound it, in the 5th paragraph, the reporter (William Neuman) slyly references how much Sen. Baucus' version would cost, and referring to "an array of taxes... with no mention of any tax on sugary beverages."

    It is not until the last few paragraphs of the "report" that Mr. Neuman gives the real story:(1) Obama said "worth exploring" but that there would be significant resistance; (2) the author of the study actually thinks that state and local governments should take the lead on it because of the lack of interest in Congress; and (3) that a few lawmakers consciously decided that it would not be presented in Congress any time in the near future.

    I rarely see an NYT report so completely boot a story in this way.  And, coming at the critical moment that it did, I am rarely as distressed by such an apparently-willful scare story from the NYT.  I urge TPM and fellow TPM'ers to protest this article furthering these attempts to muddy the debate.  The Times should take several barrels of these soft drinks to help quench the flames it has stirred up!

    Do WHAT to "That Chicken?" (NSFW)


    chicken

    Some things can and should be presented with no commentary whatsoever.


    Read more »

    Memento Mori: Not Only Peter and Paul will Miss Mary.


    I've had a couple of hard months losing heroes.  The eminent historian John Hope Franklin died in late march.  I'm teaching a course celebrating his life and work. Then it was Eunice Kennedy Shriver.  I wrote a note on her which slipped off the front page before anyone much noticed.  Shortly after, Teddy Kennedy passed; his death occasioning criticism from those who found his life not spotless enough to suit them, as well as praise for the efforts he made across his very long career.
    Yesterday Mary Travers died.  One of the the army of "folk" who fought the good cause with melody and lyrics for more than a generation.  She was 72, a victim of leukemia, not old by today's standards of old.  I don't know anyone who had anything particularly malicious to say about Mary, though members of her craft have been ridiculed around here from time to time.  Buit I want to remember her today, publicly.  And I hope that the aholics will dedicate the jukebox to her this evening. 
    IF I HAD A HAMMER (The Hammer Song)> words and music by Lee Hays and Pete Seeger 
    If I had a hammer I'd hammer in the morning I'd hammer in the evening All over this land I'd hammer out danger I'd hammer out a warning I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land 
    f I had a bell I'd ring it in the morning I'd ring it in the evening All over this land I'd ring out danger I'd ring out a warning I'd ring out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land 
    If I had a song I'd sing it in the morning I'd sing it in the evening All over this land I'd sing out danger I'd sing out a warning I'd sing out love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land 
    Well I've got a hammer And I've got a bell And I've got a song to sing All over this land It's the hammer of justice It's the bell of freedom It's the song about love between my brothers and my sisters All over this land
    No moment of silence please.  No moment of silence for a singer.  A moment of song, a moment of joyful noise, a moment of not worrying about whether it's good enough for anyone to hear.  Thank you for your life, Mary.
    When Day is Done

    When the day is done
    Down to earth then sinks the sun
    Along with everything that was lost and won
    When the day is done.

    When the day is done
    Hope so much your race will be all run
    Then you find you jumped the gun
    Have to go back where you began
    When the day is done.

    When the night is cold
    Some get by but some get old
    Just to show lifes not made of gold
    When the night is cold.

    When the bird has flown
    Got no-one to call your own
    Got no place to call your home
    When the bird has flown.

    When the games been fought
    You speed the ball across the court
    Lost much sooner than you would have thought
    Now the games been fought.

    When the partys through
    Seems so very sad for you
    Didnt do the things you meant to do
    Now theres no time to start anew
    Now the partys through.

    When the day is done
    Down to earth then sinks the sun
    Along with everything that was lost and won
    When the day is done





    A Few Bad Apples


    You've probably heard by now of the videos being promoted by Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and Fox News that purport to show Acorn employees engaging in some rather unethical behavior.  I don't know to what extent the videos have been edited, because they have clearly been edited, but there certainly seems to be some rotten behavior on display.  The SF chronicle has reported that that these employees have already been fired, although the same article also notes that there were other cities that booted the videographers, with the Acorn office in Philly even filing a police report, something that Breitbart and Giles, one of the videographers in question, patently denied on Hannity.

    Read more »

    New Reality TV Show: "Get That Bill Passed"


    I'm sure most of you have heard of high schools holding mock jury trials right?  If you haven't here is a little bit about them from Wikipedia:

    A mock trial is a contrived or imitation trial. It is similar to a moot court, but mock trials simulate lower-court trials, while moot court simulates appellate court hearings. Attorneysvolunteers to test theories or experiment with each other. In a mock trial the rules are often abbreviated in order to focus on particular parts of the trial. preparing for a real trial might use a mock trial consisting of

    Mock trial is also the name of an extracurricular program in which students participate in contrived or fake trials to learn new skills and compete with each other. At some law schools, the term trial advocacy is used for the program. Various organizations, such as state bar associations, sponsor mock trial/trial advocacy competitions for middle school students, high school students, college students, and law students.

    Interscholastic mock trials take place on three levels. High-school competitive mock trial has an annual national competition governed by the National Mock Trial Association. The competition on the college circuit is governed by the American Mock Trial Association. The college circuit also has an unofficial online forum at Perjuries Mock Trial. Finally, there is mock trial/trial advocacy at the Law School level such as the National Trial Competition Texas Young Lawyers Association and the American College of Trial Lawyers. hosted by the

    Most of you also know about the famous reality shows that are seen on television on a weekly basis such as Big Brothers, Fear Factor, The Amazing Race, Survivor and many others. 

    Reality television is a genre of television programming that presents purportedly unscripted dramatic or humorous situations, documents actual events, and usually features ordinary people instead of professional actors.

    I thought of this idea a few years ago but it didn't go over too well, perhaps it would now.  Why not create a reality show using real people as House of Representatives and Senators of United States.  There would be Democrats, Republicans and Independents.  There would be a president as well, consisting of the Party currently in charge in real life.  The Speaker of the House and Majority leader of the Senate would be a well known former Representative and Senator of a previous Congress.  Each team would have one or two former Representatives or Senators leading them (that Party) on the show.

    Each season, the show would work on a major bill(s) that the real Congress is working on.  All negotiations would be made public - except during the taping of the show.  All parties would at that time know nothing about what the other team is saying or doing.

    Keep in mind this show would have to be Pre-Recorded.  That's how they would be able to do this individual Party negotiating, behind closed doors.

    There should be absolutely NO outside influence on these participants.  Just like Survivor, they must stay at the debates till the season is recorded -- no going home.

    The television audience of course, would end up seeing and hear what was said during those meetings during the season's show.

    For political junkies like myself, we'd get to see how things are done in Congress and with the Administration.  What really goes on behind those closed doors?  How does a bill finally get passed?

    I think this kind of program that could end up having potential influence on what's currently going on in the real Congress and the Administration.  What do you think?


    Where in the World is Avigdor Lieberman?


    Avigdor Lieberman is a man on many missions. Over the last few months, he has traveled far and wide, journeying to many areas of the world that have not ever seen, nor for a very long time, been graced with the presence of an Israeli Foreign Minister. 

    In July, Lieberman was in South America.  While there he met with high ranking officials from Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Peru. According to the JTA, the trip covered a great deal of diplomatic ground "ranging from economic cooperation to the Iranian nuclear threat", to the commemoration of the anniversary of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center bombing in 1994 which killed 85 people.

    Earlier this month, sub-Saharan Africa (specifically, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda) and Ethiopia were the ports of call. Lieberman led a delegation that included representatives from private and state owned weapons manufacturers, as well as economic, development and water experts. Discussions covered a range of topics from weapons deals to Iran, water/irrigation projects and HIV prevention. In Nigeria, Lieberman signed a memorandum of understanding with ECOWAS, an important regional group of African states that works to promote economic integration across a range of areas.

    In his most recent trip to the Balkans, Lieberman held meetings with the leaders of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro. As EU prospects these countries are being actively cultivated by Israel for political and economic purposes.

    To give a little perspective to these trips, the last time an Israeli Foreign Minister visited sub-Saharan Africa was 18 years ago and South America 22 years. Lieberman's visit to the three Balkan nations is the first ever by an Israeli Foreign Minister. Arguably, according to Lieberman these locales "did not receive adequate attention in the past" but are now front and center for the Israeli Foreign Minister. Why this change and why now?

    Lieberman claims it is a strategy to re-focus the Foreign Ministry on overlooked areas of Israeli engagement, and away from Israel-Palestinian and Israel-Arab diplomatic matters. According to Lieberman, "one of the foreign ministry's mistakes was to turn itself into a ministry for Palestinian affairs" [and] "I have no intention of doing that, no plans for obsessive engagement." In comparison, as Foreign Minister, Lieberman's predecessor Tzipi Livni, maintained an in-depth negotiating track with Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia just one year ago.

    There are likely numerous reasons for Lieberman's lack of involvement in Israel-Palestinian diplomacy, including the fact that Lieberman himself is a settler who lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim, and he has repeatedly dismissed current efforts to launch negotiations as naïve. But it is unlikely Lieberman would be able to effectively engage in Mideast diplomacy, even if he wanted to. Lieberman is definitely somebody to whom nations are not tripping over to roll out the red carpet to. And some countries have been openly hostile to him.

    But not only is Lieberman not involved in Israel-US and Israel-Arab discussions-he may even be hiding from them. The pattern is clear. Lieberman's 10 day jaunt through South America coincided with the visits of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and Middle East envoy George Mitchell to Israel. The current trip to the Balkans overlapped with Mitchell's meeting on September 15th with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This has become almost a predictable pattern; if Mitchell or another high ranking US official is in town, Lieberman is either out of town or on his way out of town. As Kevin Peraino in Newsweek reveals, "unofficially, Israeli wags suspect, his mission is to stay out of the way."

    In October 2008, Lieberman famously said that Egyptian President Mubarak can "go to hell." On the heels of this remark, President Shimon Peres and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered effusive apologies to Mubarak.  In a meeting in April of this year with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman in Jerusalem, according to Yediot Acharonoth, the Egyptians demanded five things apropos a meeting with Lieberman:

    An apology from Lieberman about his verbal attacks on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak; a statement from Lieberman about the importance of Egypt and the strategic ties between the two countries; the meeting must be held in the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem and not in the Foreign Ministry building; the fact of the meeting must be kept secret until the last minute; [And] the media must be kept away from the meeting.

    After the meeting there were conflicting accounts of whether an invitation was extended to Lieberman to visit Cairo. 

    One nation Lieberman has been successful in making diplomatic inroads with is Russia. In his first trip to Russia as Foreign Minister, Lieberman, born in the former U.S.S.R. Republic of Moldova, had many high-level meetings and was warmly received. As the Center for American Progress' Matt Yglesias points out, this could be a ploy to use access to Russia to threaten a weakening of the US-Israeli alliance, or to try to flip Russia away from its support for Iran. The US and Israel are long standing allies, with multiple strategic, military, social and political linkages and relationships. However, Lieberman may be the right man to try to get a little something out of the Russians. In essence, as Yglesias notes, the general perception of Lieberman is:

    The head of a quasi-fascist party elected on a platform of racial animosity isn't a helpful front man for Israeli policies in the United States, he isn't helpful in Western Europe, and he certainly isn't helpful in Cairo or Ankara. But that's not the kind of thing that would bother Vladimir Putin.

    Though his connection to his former homeland might pay potential dividends, Lieberman, as Peraino writes in Newsweek is "considered an embarrassing loose cannon by large swaths of the Israeli public, [and] has never been taken particularly seriously in diplomatic circles."

    Earlier this week, Laura Rozen at Politico reported that Lieberman extended an invitation to Secretary of State Clinton to hold a so-called "strategic dialogue" in Israel in October. The last such meeting occurred in 2007 and was described by the State Department in general terms, as an effort "to strengthen the already close strategic cooperation between our two countries." Notably, the 2007 meeting was led by then-U.S. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns and then-Israeli Minister of Transportation Shaul Mofaz, and did not include the participation of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice or Foreign Minister Livni. Rozen reports that Clinton has "provisionally accepted the invitation."

    Whether the proposed "strategic dialogue" will be more than a photo-op for Lieberman is not yet clear. But given his complete irrelevance in key diplomatic efforts thus far, it is doubtful Lieberman will begin playing any constructive role on critical foreign affairs issues.  Of course it is also questionable how long Lieberman will last as Foreign Minister. He is under serious investigation for corruption, with an indictment in the works. Then again, in Israel, many politicians are under investigation or indictment.

    With David Halperin

    This post originally appeared in the Mideast Peace Pulse

    CA Measure to Improve Youth Voter Engagement Goes to Governor


    Cross-posted to Project Vote's Voting Matters Blog

    The California Legislature approved a bill last week to extend voter registration privileges to 17-year-old citizens. If signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the bill would help put California youth on the road to a lifetime of democratic participation.

    Read more »

    Subversive Spam


    I'm just as tired of writing post titles about spammers as you are, guys. Oof.

    The new problems: Registration has been shut off all week (automatic registration, that is; if people want to register, they have to email me to manually set up an account.) These new fellas are subverting the registration block somehow - tech guru Al is looking into it. We're not quite sure what to make of it. Movable Type is working with us on an anti-spam plugin (progress!), and Al is planning on talking to SixApart on this very serious, very annoying issue.

    I've said this before, but it bears repeating: we can only track down IP addresses when someone leaves a comment. We sadly cannot ban the IP addresses of all the recent spammers, 'cause they've only left blog posts, no comments.

    I like these tech recommendations a lot. We'll certainly see what we can do - the basic problem with that specific suggestion is that we don't operate on WordPress, we're on Movable Type.

    Continue:
    -emailing me directly (versha@talkingpointsmemo.com) - I'll definitely see direct emails SOONER than any emails sent to talk@ or help@.
    -when a spammer has 25 or more posts, you don't have to take the time to send me individual post links - just send me the link to the spammer's profile, or the spammer's profile name. Either one works.

    As always, thank you!

    A watery lok at the briney depths of the recession.


    A report on the ghost fleet of the economic down turn.
    Just 12 months ago these financiers and brokers
    were enjoying fat bonuses as they traded cargo
    space. But nobody wants the space any more, and
    those that still need to ship goods across the
    world are demanding vast reductions in price.

    Do not tell these men and women about green shoots
    of recovery. As Briton Tim Huxley, one of Asia's
    leading ship brokers, says, if the world is really
    pulling itself out of recession, then all these
    idle ships should be back on the move. South China
    Sea map

    'This is the time of year when everyone is doing
    all the Christmas stuff,' he points out.

    'A couple of years ago those ships would have been
    steaming back and forth, going at full speed. But
    now you've got something like 12 per cent of the
    world's container ships doing nothing.'

    Aframaxes are oil bearers. But the slump is
    industry-wide. The cost of sending a 40ft steel
    container of merchandise from China to the UK has
    fallen from £850 plus fuel charges last year to
    £180 this year. The cost of chartering an entire
    bulk freighter suitable for carrying raw materials
    has plunged even further, from close to £185,000
    ($300,000) last summer to an incredible £6,100
    ($10,000) earlier this year.

    Business for bulk carriers has picked up slightly
    in recent months, largely because of China's
    rediscovered appetite for raw materials such as
    iron ore, says Huxley. But this is a small part of
    international trade, and the prospects for the
    container ships remain bleak.

    Some experts believe the ratio of container ships
    sitting idle could rise to 25 per cent within two
    years in an extraordinary downturn that shipping
    giant Maersk has called a 'crisis of historic
    dimensions'. Last month the company reported its
    first half-year loss in its 105-year history.
    No green shoots here...just barnacles and sea weed.

    Boats of mine go boating. Oh where will all come home.


    C

    Is it safe to say we're glad that Blago appointed Burris yet?


    Even if nobody else is ready to go that far, I am.

    IGMR Live Call-in Show 8PM EST-10: Conservative Improv Theater!!!


    ***UPDATED*** Here's the program:

    Got a knack for impersonating today's conservative icons? Then this is where you want to be tonight at 8 PM EST.

    Acting up is all well and good, but we're gonna be acting OUT!

    Consider your motivation, emotions, and tone and get ready to act in one of the following scenes:

    1) Sarah Palin has Trig taken away from her by an evil Obama death panel.
    2) A McCain supporter is attacked by a hulking Obama supporter who carves a "B" into her face.
    3) The Supreme Court declares the Obama presidency over on the strength of Orly Taitz's latest birth certificate forgery.

    They can imagine it, so why shouldn't we finish the job?

    Don't miss out! I'll post the show as soon as it's over here.

    The White House Has Confirmed President Carter's Statement


    'Bro', 'Brother', 'Dude', 'Cool Daddy', 'CAT",

    are all names that I've personally been called in the past to clearly annotate that I was the different one in the room, the meeting, on the team, or at the social event. President Carter's words are being parsed, "segregated" and dismissed as poorly timed, when in actuality they apply all the time.

    President Bush's latest off the cuff comments about then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, as recanted by Matt Latimer, were yet another confirmation of just how pervasive and true the point that President Carter was trying to make was. I don't know President Bush, nor am I implying that he is a racist. But I do believe that he as well as the overwhelming majority of whites in this country would never refer to another white man as a "Cat!" Not only was President Bush calling Candidate Obama unqualified (which is his right do so), he was also separating Obama from the herd of "real" potential candidates. He was so overtly but unsuspectingly putting the then Senator on a rung below the rest of the field.

    I've been in many circles where I was the only black person and have had the group at large come up with some prefix, connotation, or current colloquialism to use in referring to me, the one who is accepted but sill different. It's flatly clear to me when whites are talking about another black person on their job or in another circle because there is always a peculiar preface about the person, or an intentional extra adjective such as "Dude", "Cool", or otherwise added to the conversation. I know the nomenclature, I know the after stare to check to see if I object to the mal-reference, I am well aware of the rationalization to follow if I ask why the person made the mal-reference.

    The easy defense tactic for many is to play the false equivalency game by showing that if there is one Teabagger, Birther, Deather or any other group member that opposes the President who is not a racist, then President Carter's entire argument is false. Well unfortunately, no only were President Carter's properly framed, he did not in any way charge that all who oppose the President were racists, or racially motivated.

    President Carter's main point was that many in this country are now engaged in purposely diminishing and disrespecting the office of the Presidency because it is more comforting to them to delegitimize President Obama than to oppose his policies on the merits. President Carter is acknowledging the fact that many who consider themselves as the most Patriotic Americans find it more comforting to discredit the office of the Presidency rather than to accept a person different from themselves in that office. President Carter is acknowledging the fact that nowhere other than a bar, a brawl or some other venue that has no rules of etiquette at all would it be acceptable to discredit a persons office or occupation the way ease and ambivalence that many do today.

    If the idea of a Black Man being President is so far a mental leap for a former President, that he could so flippantly dismiss the candidate that has earned more money than any other in political history, then it is no wonder that probably 1/5th of the country that he leads shares that same mindset.

    So while the Obama White House Administration rightfully sees President Carter's remarks as a distraction and knows that his words could be used divisively, the Bush White House has clearly confirmed just how wise President Carter is.

     

    Happy Anniversary!!!


    Happy Anniversary Poland! Yes, on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion, our great leader has decided to capitulate to the Russians and cancel the plans for missile defense of europe. Aided by his highly skilled team from the State Dept (Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary for arms control no doubt relied on knowledge gained from her degree in childhood education), they completely threw the Poles and the Czechs under the bus to appease the Russians. This defense shield was never really about Iran, it was about a chance to cement the relationship between Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US. By placing US bases on their soil it would establish a permanent presence and a reassuring deterrent against Russian threats (like those Ukraine and Georgia face). We showed them that just like in 1939, the west cannot be counted on. Pass the cake.

    WHAT THE "H'' IS GOING ON??? 21/25ths spam at 9:12 e.d.t.


    The headline says it all...except for this.  The masthead at the cafe now lists only Josh Marshall.  So is the chief minding the store by himself, or is nobody minding the store.  For all the fixes proposed, things seem to get worse and worse. And I don't think it can be much worse.
     It is so frustrating to feel powerless here.

    [gravity + grace] A Parkinson's Opera


    In a time where the media spotlight is focused on selfish, angry people, I thought I'd take a minute to draw your attention to someone who got is dealing with his disability in a positive way.

    Imagine being an artist... someone who works with his hands... and suddenly, your hands don't work so well anymore.

    (h/t to my friend Peter Dunlap-Shohl in Anchorage for alerting me to this.  I highly recommend his outstanding blog, "Off and On, the Alaska Parkinson's Rag" -- a blog that will reaffirm your faith in Alaska.)

    When Parkinson's disease handed him lemons, artist Frank Ferraro wrote an opera.

    Read more »

    Daily Pulse: Dissecting the Baucus Bill


    By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger

    Yesterday, a long and pathetic spectacle came to an end. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont) released the first draft of the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill.

    Read more »

    Time to get out of Afghanistan... and Germany, Korea, Japan, Italy, Britain, Turkey, Bahrain...


    President Obama, bring our troops (citizens) home. What need -- or right -- does our nation have in having a military presence in over 100 countries around the globe? Iraq 140,000; Afghanistan 45,000; Germany 57,000; South Korea 27,000; Japan 32,000; Italy 10,000; Britain 9000; Bahrain 1500; and so on.

    How would Americans feel if there were a military presence of over 100 nations from around the world in our country? Flying their planes over our homes?

    America's infrastructure is crumbling, our debt climbing. Our education system is failing our youth in many critical areas such as math, science and engineering.  A side effect of cancer or getting sick in America is bankruptcy. In other words we have plenty that needs to be done here rather than sending our citizens out on global patrol that isn't wanted, isn't needed and isn't appreciated.

    So President Obama if you have four years or eight years, before you leave office, as commander-in-chief please bring ALL Americans troops back to American soil. We don't want foreign troops on our soil, and other nations across the globe don't want foreign troops on their lands. We can't afford to continue this policy and I believe in the ethics of reciprocity, the golden rule, and I believe this policy is contrary to that.

    We, as a nation, have allowed this policy of a global military presence to continue year after year because we can, not because we it's right. It's now time to get it right, not just out of respect for other nations on earth, but for our own good. The enormous amount of taxpayer money saved would benefit Americans much more if spent right in the U.S.A.

    -- cross posted to Steve Everett Blog .com

    My tech recommendation for TPM.


    Josh:
    I know the cafe isn't a huge money maker and your business model doesn't warrant a full time employee for the site. I also am lacking in some basic information about your system and capacities so I'm sort of going blind here. But clearly there is a consistent problem with mega-spam.

    It seems you are balancing two competing needs which are: the need to allow people to participate and the need to maintain control over content in regards to spam. The spam problem appears to stem exclusively from the fact that accounts have auto-activation that immediately allows new users to post diary entries en mass. The key is to find a way to curtail this while still making it convenient for people to sign up to comment, as well as to find a solution that does not significantly increase overhead to the staff. It seems to me that the site doesn't add *that* many new legitimate diary posters in any given day/week.  You should consider limiting the ability for new users to post diary entries without approval.

    This is the first wordpress plugin that popped up by searching for "wordpress blog approval" on Google. It may not be the best for the task, but it will work fine to describe what I'm talking about. The plugin (called "GT post approval") advertises that it allows administrators to approve/reject posts, and to set an access level for auto-approval of posts. An imaginary operational policy would go something like:

    1 - All current posters set to auto approval level
    2 - All new posters have their posts drop to the approve/reject que
    3 - After the user makes their first diary entry that is obviously serious, set their access level to auto appoval level.
    4 - clean out all the spam with a simple click of a reject button
    5 - delete spam producing accounts (optionally, block the IP)

    This would block the diary entry spam while not interfering with people who want to sign up and comment immediately. It would also allow you to manage the approval/spam removal process as a scheduled task that can be budgeted in a (reasonably) predictable fashion which would likely take some of the uncertainty out of managing the cafe. I can't imagine that it would take more than 15 minutes for an employee to go through and approve/clear out a decent list. Depending on available resources, if you were able to do it twice daily there wouldn't even be that big a delay for new members.

    Anyhoo, that's what I'd tell you if you were a client. :-)

    And yes, I'm post-timing this for around 10am tomorrow because we're in the midst of a new spam attack ... and putting it on muck and dc even though it's meta 'cause I'd like management to see it.

    Banks / Financial Sector, Business as Usual


    It would seem that congress is behind the power curve in addressing CDS (Credit Default Swaps). The financial sector is full steam ahead with business as usual just as before the near total collapse of world finacial markets.

    The problem stems from congress not having (yet) acted upon two available choices. Either regulate the hell out of derivatives or ban them. Of the two, banning them is the more pratical. The reason for that is derivatives serve no useful purpose apart from making a bunch of money for players in the derivatives marketplace.

    In fact, what we have now is a variation on the theme spreading to other financial instruments, with players making the same bets on those instruments as was done in the mortgage marketplace. The push for returns (profits) is driving this and doesn't deliver a product with any inherent value. This actually injects into the financial marketplace a scheme where dollars are extracted which represents a real cost to the overall community of users of financial services.

    However, with no benefit to the larger community of users of financial services there is no justification for the existence of the scheme. You can say the justification is this is how capitalism works. That of course is false. Capitalism is predicated upon provisioning a useful product for those persons who need or consume it. Derivatives fail that test because the cost is borne by all users of finacial services with this cost being involuntary in nature and not delivering to that overall user group anything of value.

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/credit-swaps-are-back-en-_n_289177.html 

     

    California Association of Highway Patrolmen Widows and Orphans' Trust Fund should return Michael Savage's $50,000 donation


    A press release put out by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen Widows and Orphans' Trust Fund announces it has received a $50,000 donation from right-wing blowhard Michael Savage and his heretofore moribund organization, the Paul Revere Society.

    Calling the donation "generous," the association's press release notes that Savage hopes the donation "will help aid the families of those that (sic) have paid the ultimate price in service of California's citizens."

    A noble gesture, on its face. Nevertheless, the association should return the donation. And quickly.

    Why? Well for a couple of reasons.

    First, there's the question of the Paul Revere Society's finances, presumably the source of the $50,000. In June 2006, the IRS announced that the society was no longer considered a 501(c)(3) organization, meaning that donations to it would no longer be considered tax-deductible.

    There was no reason given for the move, and when I called the IRS at the time, I was told the only people who could comment were the organization's principles. Of course, that never happened. In fact, it was some time before Savage even removed the "501(c)(3)" tag from the PRS Web site.

    Now, according to the 2004 tax return filed by the PRS in June, 2005, the organization -- listed as an educational organization, by the way -- had in its coffers at the end of 2004 more than $927,000. I and other Savage critics have been asking for three years about the disposition of that money. Was it returned to donors? Was it used for any "educational" purposes? If so, what? And did it all come from donations?

    And, as loyal Savage listeners know, Savage has been incessantly begging for money from his listeners to fund his many legal battles. Was there any intermingling of that money?

    It's worth noting that in its 2004 return, the last one before the IRS action, the organization reported that 62 percent of its expenses ($109,000 of $178,000) were for "fund raising activities." Another $50,000 went for unspecified "management" expenses.

    The PRS reported earning $227,653 in "direct public donations" that year; that means that fully 48 percent of the revenue was used to raise money. Huh.

    Second, there's the issue of the PRS itself. Although the Widows and Orphans' Fund press release calls it a "patriotic" group, I don't think there's anything patriotic about xenophobia, race hatred and fear mongering, all of which Savage has dabbled in, under color of the PRS. He can use the mantle of "borders, language and culture" to pretty it up and make it more palatable to the knuckle-draggers who follow him, but putting perfume on shit only covers up the smell for so long.

    Certainly $50,000 is nothing to sneeze at for a non-profit, especially in these economic times. But the Widows and Orphans' fund needs to ask itself if taking this money is worth the stench that comes with it.

    I say no.

    Keep the faith.

    You Can't Fix Stupid


    "Race" has reared its ugly head again as a part of the political discourse.    The signs you see at Tea Parties are not ALL racist, but many have been.   In fact, there have been enough examples of blatant racism that the Left has neatly packaged the protests into a little box and labeled the entire movement, "racist". 

    Now I don't want to defend the "tea baggers".   But I think it is important that we try to understand why they believe the way they do.   And putting it all down to race is not accurate.   The truth is that many of the anti-health care crowd do harbor racist feelings.   But for some it is an underlying part of their anger.   They truly believe (even if they're wrong) that the country they love is under attack from within.   (It's kind of like what we felt from 2001 to 2008.)   

    Why is it important to understand their fears?    I mean regardless of the amount of noise they make, they are not a majority opinion.   But their concern for fiscal responsibility (even in the warped form they offer it to America as) is a concern of more than just the far Right.   And for those on the Left who are NOT concerned about fiscal responsibility....you should be!  Independents and many of the "Blue Dog" Democrats are also very concerned.   And their support is extremely flexible.  You don't want to lose it.

    But it's also important that we understand the range of the concerns, fears and paranoia of the movement.  Because some of the fears can be answered.

     Your little old grandmother who is certain that Obama's Health Care proposals are going to result in death panels, may believe that because it's what she's heard from the girls at the bridge club.  Your dealing calmly with her may help sway her opinion.  The Christian who lives next door may not have a racist bone in her body, but she objects to government funded abortions.  Your time spent explaining (even though you don't agree with her stance) that the upcoming legislation does not provide abortion-on-demand money may make an impression on her.  Because you're her neighbor.  You're not the evil politician her minister warned her about.   The small business man you buy from may not understand the impact that a public health option could have on the cost of his personal insurance.  And if you write him off as racist, you lose any chance of winning his support. 

    You see it's important that we not get so caught up in the race arguments that we lose sight of the important goals.    Racism should always be called out!   But that is a different matter than trying to fight the racism.   Because racism is STUPID.    There's nothing you can do to change it.   Most of the time, a racist isn't some skin head freak who screams "KEEP AMERICA WHITE", instead a racist is the one who "knows" that "those people" aren't as good as "his people".    He probably even knows enough to know not to say such things aloud.   But he thinks it.  And in most cases he will think that way until the day he dies.  So why fight it?

    Congressman Wilson MAY be a racist.  But it was not necessarily racist to yell at the President during the joint address to Congress.  It was rude, inappropriate and pretty stupid....but that doesn't necessarily mean it was racist.   (Now the fact that he supports flying the confederate flag over his state capital and the fact that he once belonged to an organization run by a white supremacist could indicate he's a racist.  But that's different than yelling at the President.)   For the Congress to take time to pass a bill condemning his action was probably not necessary.   It was well within their right to do so, but what did it accomplish?    It didn't change his opinions on anything.   It will help raise money for his re-election bid.   It makes him a hero to those that are as stupid as he is!  But that's about it.

    Most of these Right Wing Racists really don't get it.     On CNN, Mark Williams, a major organizer for the tea party movement spent a great deal of time explaining how racism was only a fringe part of the movement.    Host Anderson Cooper then asked why Mr. Williams had written on his personal blog that President Obama was an "Indonesian Muslim Welfare Thug"?   That was merely an accurate description according to Mr. Williams, not a racist statement.  Huh? Talk about seeing the world through the eyeholes of your white hood!  How do you argue with such blind ideology?   You don't!

    You can pass laws that prohibit actual racist acts.   You can outlaw desegregation.   You can ban "Jim Crow" laws.   You can prosecute for racially motivated crimes.   But you can't change how people think.  Only time and experience can do that.

    And it is happening.   That's evident by the fact that Barrack Obama IS President.   That's seen in every college basketball game you watch on TV.   (When I was a child college basketball players were either black or white.   Now huge numbers proudly proclaim themselves to be "mixed")   My son who spent his childhood trying to decide if he was black or latino....now feels no need to choose.   A white step-father with a black child is not the oddity it was when I moved in with his family!    Times change and so do the attitudes of people.    What we are seeing in the Tea Party movement are the holdovers.   And there's nothing you can do about them except be thankful that today they are the minority when 50 years ago they were the average American!

    It's a principal first put forth by Comedienne Ron White of the self-proclaimed "Red Neck Comedy Tour":   "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!"

    But we can fix health care.   Let's focus our efforts on that instead of the distraction of racism that we can't do anything about.

    Colin Powell: "reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility"


    New York Times (9-16-09): In an interview Wednesday shortly after meeting privately with Mr. Obama in the Oval Office, Colin L. Powell, secretary of state under Mr. Bush, said: "You can find pictures where Bush was called all kinds of names, with all sorts of banners being held up and burned in effigy. I've seen it in every presidency."

    Mr. Powell said he believed that Mr. Obama might be facing even more apparent hostility but that the blame lay not necessarily with racial bias, but instead with the partisan culture of the Internet and cable news and the way they amplify the more extreme voices.

    "The issue there is not race, it's civility," Mr. Powell said. "This is not to say that we are suddenly racially pure, but constantly talking about it and reducing everything to black versus white is not helpful to the cause of restoring civility to our public dialogue."

    Please direct me


    I am seeking a singular website dedicated to debunking hoaxes produced and proliferated by FOX news.  From what I can see, this would be a full time job for any single person to maintain but from what I can see there needs to be one and by now someone has thought of it. 

    I'm describing a site which would address the falsehoods presented on Fox News and debunk them with links to facts, at least where facts can be found to debunk rumors.  Some rumors can never be entirely debunked, ie if someone accused you of incest, how would literally PROVE your innocence, which is my point.

    The reason I'm seeking this today is that I've recently heard what to me is a new and rather paranoid sounding rumor regarding Health Care Reform and the Public Option, which I believe must be false.  I'd prefer not to state what the rumor is for fear of proliferating it, but from what I've been able to find in web searches, it seems that it almost certainly originated in a news article someplace and was misconstrued by one or a few people and then proliferated.  I've so far found one reference to it as a comment on a Fox news story but I cannot as yet decipher what it was in the article that gave the reader such a skewed interpretation of the content.

    It might not even be possible to completely debunk it except to demand that those presenting it as factual present the source.  At present I've asked the person making the bizarre claim to email me a link to the story he's talking about.   He agreed to do so but his last email to me did not contain the promised link.  I suspect this is all borne of some hoax circulated in email.  When will people learn?

    I Knew It Wasn't My Fault -- It's those Darn Fat Molecules


    A U.S. study by UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas has found that fat from certain foods such ice-cream and burgers heads to the brain.

    Once there, the fat molecules trigger the brain to send messages to the body's cells, warning them to ignore the appetite-suppressing signals from leptin and insulin, hormones involved in weight regulation -- for up to three days.

    "Normally, our body is primed to say when we've had enough, but that doesn't always happen when we're eating something good...

    Well I feel much better now knowing that it's not my fault that I am overweight (fat), it's those fat molecules sending coded messages through out my body that's causing me to continue eating.

    Dang!  Can you sue a fat molecule?

    LET'S HELP SEN. SHELBY !!!


     As I  have tried to convey on these internets previously,  the Rule of Law is very important to me. It is especially important to me in the affairs of government because we have to trust a lot of other people to handle these affairs cost effectively, fairly, ethically, and honestly, among other things, and not necessarily in that order.

    I heard Sen. Richard Shelby this monrning on Morning Joe demand investigations of ACORN.

    I have to give you the FOX version:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrmzeO5URXw

    FIFTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS !!!! over ten years those awful people were given. But seriously, folks, because of my respect for the Rule of Law I personally do not have any problem with investigating and prosecuting what appears to be wilful fraud of the government.

     I mean come on, telling pimps how to hide Salvadoran teenage hookers in order to generate housing clients.At a minimum, I would say ACORN has some unusual probelms.

    So I am willing to make a deal with Sen. Shelby, I will wholeheartedly support the ACORN investigations if he will wholeheartedly support vigorous investigation of the Bush Administration's activities related to the Iraq War.

    Where only maybe a few trillion was lost.  

    How do these guys look at themselves in the mirror?  

     

     

    « September 6, 2009 - September 12, 2009 | Home | September 20, 2009 - September 26, 2009 »
    Advertisement
    Please disable your adblocker!
    Ads are how we pay the bills!

    Subscribe

    The Coffee House
    TPMCafe's regulars

    House Brew
    From Your Cafe Editor

    Special Guests
    Big names and big brains

    Special Features
    Pressing topics and trends

    Table for One
    An expert's week-long talk.

    All Reader Posts
    TPM readers discuss.

    Cafe Features

    Coming Soon



    Nov. 30-Dec. 4



    January 12-16



    « Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

    Recent Reader Posts