Every once in a while someone mentions how we're "getting out of Iraq". I'd like to know exactly what they mean by this. There are still some 117,000 soldiers in Iraq, with maybe 240,000 contractors in Iraq & Afghanistan, or maybe many more - no one's quite sure.

The troops in Iraq were supposed to pull down after the January elections, while with the elections are postponed, supposedly troop withdrawals will happen anyway (goal of something like 60,000 in September). I'll believe it when I see it.

Meanwhile, support contractors are supposed to go from 1:1 up to 1.5:1. That's right, so while we're withdrawing 60,000 troops (which may not happen), we'll be upping the workload on contractors. So it's an effective pulldown of 120K + 120K = 240K to 60K + 90K, or 150K US-funded folks to hang on after September. Of course KBR hasn't given a pull-down schedule, so they may not bring many contractors out soon either.

So will there be some kind of pullout in Iraq? Is 150K US contract guards and "police" troops instead of "combat" troops what you were expecting by September? And will the others come home, or just head next door (hat-tip to John McCain) for the war in Afghanistan? And while we've begrudgingly added benefits for the Iraq vets, will we also add benefits for the contractors, who KBR is curiously hiring out of the Bahamas to avoid benefits? (I say "curiously" because I'd figure there was some kind of "Buy America" clause in all of this, not because I assume we'd support workers' benefits like health care and insurance. Beware the socialism).

I saw Jay Leno on a panel wondering if these contractors are electricians and carpenters, or modern-day Hessians. Curious that the comedians like Leno and Jon Stewart are usually the only ones to ask these serious questions.

Well Bill Thompson just came 5 points away from toppling 3-timer Michael Bloomberg, despite $100 million spent against him. And despite Thompson running an awful campaign. But the Democratic Party also worked against him - imagine what he could have done if Obama, Clinton, Schumer, et al. had actually supported a democrat? 

And this should put a nail in the coffin of the meme that the Obama team knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake. Sure, few others caught the disgruntlement of the New York populace (probably those early morning Bloomberg speaker trucks had more effect than Bloomberg's arrogance and Wall Street ties), but you don't get your reputation as a Wünderkind by keeping up with the pack - you get it by being right when they're wrong. 

Don't get me wrong - I was pleased that Obama & Clinton went out to support a sure loser in Virginia, just as I was pissed when Obama refused to show up for Jim Martin's Georgia runoff last December. I hate all this Rahm calculated "can't expend the political capital if they'll lose" thinking - too much like the Colin Powell chicken-shit doctrine - only show up if the odds are heavily in your favor - forget Cortez, forget Pizarro, forget come-from-behind Truman or even Bill Clinton. So to have leading Democrats show up to support Democrats just because they need the help? Right on. Even if it only lowers the defeat by a few points, that's a few points of embarrassment the next candidate doesn't have to overcome, especially in all-important fund-raising.

I also think this shatters the myth that blacks will get much of anything out of an Obama presidency, at least not from him. I don't especially welcome some over-the-top affirmative action for any minority candidate, but a black candidate running for mayor in New York City can warrant one visit, one warm message from Obama's lips? Frayed knot.
I think the real answer though is that Bloomberg is closer to Obama's style than Thompson - both at home with the Geithner/Summers crowd, halls of power and money, smooth dressers, smooth talkers. It's hard to ding Bloomberg's self-funded campaign when Obama passed up public matching to spend 3/4 of a billion dollars. Any doubt that Obama would change the constitution to run a 3rd time if he could?

In any case, I hope we can get back to quit trying to pick winners and losers, and just do the right thing - figure out which candidate we like best in the primaries, and supporting them in the generals, whatever the polls say, whatever the pundits say, whatever our party kibbitzers like Rahm say is best for us. For all our Schadenfreude about NY-23 (where conservatives proved they could knock out a moderate to rouse their base), the Democrats suffered their own disease with our Blue Dog 5th column, with the Lieberman vs. Ned Lamont fiasco, with abandoning Jim Martin after the big party, and now leaving Bill Thompson in the lurch. Andrew Weiner was just saying in September he would have beaten Bloomberg like a "rented mule". Coulda, shoulda, woulda. How about "just do it"? As Thompson almost did. 

By the way, what happened to that DNC 50-state strategy that served us so well in 2005-2008? Before comrade Dean got shoved aside? The Obama team was going to replace it with another. Is that happening, or will we get a rude surprise come 2010-2012, a quick return to the dog days of 2002?

I mean, it's normal, I know it's been going on for some time -Democrats go on TV. They're allowed there. They're almost welcome there. And they've been doing this for almost 150 years now, or whenever they invented TV. So is it possible that these little political maggots some day one day get together and actually pretend to hone a coherent messagefor their 15 seconds of fame? I mean, not to be crude, but I prepare more for my morning shit than these people do, and I'm not paid in the 6-7 figure bracket for that morning shit.
If you need to know what I'm talking about (the lame Democrat TV appearance side of things, don't worry, though I find it more disgusting than the scatalogical side of the argument), you can just click here:http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/for-fox-sake-by-digby-in-battle-of-fox.html It takes a bit to get there, but the lead-up is quite good as well -the arguments that everyone should memorize for dealing with the "Fox News is really a news outlet, honest Injun" meme. And then that woman, supposedly a Democrat, likely dug up from the remains of a failed alien close encounter, appears.For 8 seconds her cover is golden - she's a member of an intelligent race intent on governing the planet in an intelligent fashion. And then they mess with her programming, by asking a followup question - unheard of in modern media practice, at least not when it comes to politicians, but she's just an industry hack, so immediately her transistors melt and she breaks into"what the hey" and starts to emulate the ways of other Democratic droids - "did I say that? Oh no, I didn't mean to be partisan, let me take off this Big D t-shirt, no, I meant, like what, you see, because, no, we're not the same, huh? Could you repeat the question? Oh,got it, I don't make categorical statements, because I have not been progra.... I don't want to be unfair and stereotypical...."
Your spokespeople are automatons and zombies. Your opponents are also automatons and zombies, but at least they have competent programmers. Your spokespeople are programmed for FAIL. Your opponents are programmed for CHUTZPAH and IRRATIONAL SELF-CONFIDENCE. Which do you think will win the battle of the Titans? Someone hand me that Lousville Slugger over there. I've got some kneecaps and ankles to break. Jesus on a pogostick, it's hard to get worse than this. Unless Jon Stewart gets cancelled. If I weren't a replicant I might get emotionally upset. As it is I'll take it out in a little ultra-violence. Better than getting upset. You earthlings could learn a thing or two, about technology, about basic android response. It's clobbering time.

Glenn Greenwald composes another ode to the enviable Goldman Sachs successunder the Obama administration.
It's pretty axiomatic that you need a big sponsor(s) to rise in the "art" of politics - Harry Truman had a Kansas City boss to push him up the ladder, Joe Biden was known as the Senator of MBNA, John McCain had his S&L buddies among other influential friends. But Obama's been considered some quirk of nature, a politician who was pure and just had supporters who liked him because he was something like Stuart Smiley. (Okay, maybe there is a bit of this quirk in Al Franken, though as usual I'll withhold opinion until I care/research).

So who brought Obama? Or as one Chicago Sun-Times piece seemed to note, Obama has skipped from one dance partner to another in his brief but torrential rise to the top. Of course the only way this would work over time is if the new dance partner is happy having even a short whirl around the dance floor. There used to be a song "as you go through life make this your goal, watch the donut, not the hole", but there is no hole these days, just a big honking Krispy Kreme Supreme. And of course few seem to care. Why "of course"? Because they're
all busy watching the fluff piece called "Republican-Democrat Football", the he-said-he-said back-and-forth that poses as politics as crooks load the house valuables out the front door into the van. Trillions continue to go bye-bye, and the national discourse is over the Nobel Peace Prize, as if "peace" weren't a quaint anachronism in the Eternal War on Terruh? 
So whether the voters brought Obama to this dance or the Chicago Machine,it's pretty obvious he's got another fine young thang to keep his eyes enthralledand his step right lively. My guess is  there'll be some sour faces at the bar whenthe dance lets out. But Goldman Sachs won't be one of them - they're used toplaying party girl and one-night stand, the Holly Golightly of our modern Wall Streetcircuit. Having a call girl's ethics is rather beneficial in these sodden times,especially with so many eager suitors having fists full of dollars up their trousers -just happy to see her, or another financial instrument in their pocket? Whichever way it leans, we're past the time when a billion here and a billion there was real money. "Trillions" is the denomination du jour, and Goldman Sachs has somehowmanaged to wind its way to the front of the call line. Whether a match made inheaven or simply a product of Harvard and Wall Street? I'll take the atheist route.God is dead, but the Dow might rise again. And the rest can go eat cake.

Baucus. What a dumbass. It's broke, fix it already.
After how many months of hearings, he still doesn't understand the basics of health care in America, acts like every new proposal is something wondrous out of the blue. How do these incompetent know-nothings rise in power, and why is this our "majority representation"? Sad times indeed.

Why isn't this woman running for office?
Sibel Edmonds lays it all down for Congresswoman Schakowsky - how to investigate, who to investigate, what to investigate, and what's happened so far.
Of course if Edmonds got to Congress, she could have some of the powers to investigate that Schakowsky won't use.
Next time someone laughs at "conspiracies in government", point to Sibel and the incredible lack of will and incentive in Congress to investigate anything worth investigating. "I see nut-tink, I hear nut-tink, I say nut-tink". Sgt. Schultz, the official mascot of the US Government.

Tired, very tired. No energy to even link, so you can go track down David Brooks via Bob Somerby. I didn't read the whole thing, but yes, the response to "I want to be the last one" to tackle health reform is, "who will deal with the perversities in the system?"
I never knew so many were so satisfied with this system until the last few months. I used to think everyone complained about health care and insurance companies, that the only reason it's not up there with lawyer jokes is because it's not funny. I thought everyone was a polyp away from bankruptcy and suicide, one unemployment check away from life disbarrment. What was I smoking? I recalled Sandra Day O'Connor talking about how difficult it was to make sure all the kids and grandkids were covered, and this is a woman at the top of the heap, obviously with a bit of cash for co-pay. 
But please don't take away our Medicare and our VA benefits and our company provided care or try to modify them in any way. We like it this way. "Anyone seen any perversities in the system?" "Nope, running fine, ignore that clunking sound. It's how those German cars always sound." I wonder if we offered cash for clunkie insurance policies whether anyone would come. But hey, some people like our Afghanistan policy too, and I can't make head or tails out of it.
Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006) 
But so what. We can afford it. Paying way too much is a sign of success. Nothing perverse about that. You don't like it, you can move to Sweden where they pay 237% tax.

Total spending on health care, per person, 2007
United States: $7290
United Kingdom: $2992
Italy: $2686
Spain: $2671
Japan: $2581 (2006)
It speaks for itself. We're being screwed and there's no serious savings in sight. Daily Howler.

Let's cut to the chase. These "low intellect wingnuts" you see on TV? They're smarter than you. You may see them as knuckle-dragging Cro-Magnons. But you have the White House and both Houses of Congress. And they can still get anyone fired anytime they want. Say bye-bye, Van Jones. All R Bases R Belong to Them. Bill O'Reilly shut down Olbermann. Rush Limbaugh shut down Michale Steele, Glen Beck shut down ColorForChange and Van Jones.
Public option? Forget it. It's been given away. Your needs don't matter. Glen Beck's matter. Michelle Bachman's matter. Big PhRMA's matter. You, as Rahm told you a few weeks ago, need to "STFU" and get to the back of the chow line. Next time he'll tell you what that acronym means. Like he told Van Jones. 
This is a government that signals defeat. "Sit down with no pre-conditions." Did you think Obama was talking about Iran? No, that was about talking to Republicans. And sure enough, they can go all ape-shit and he'll still negotiate with them.
So knowing this President only responds to threats, to bully tactics, to unhinged behavior, time to start threatening. I think an "Al Franken-Van Jones" ticket for 2012 sounds pretty nice - I hear first term Senators can get elected Prez these days. I think a well funded anti-Blue Dog movement for 2010 sounds nice. No liberals to run against Blue Dogs? Fund the Republican. Let the Blue Dogs come whimpering to you.
Remember when Congress censured Move On for expressing its written opinion in public - not comparing Bush to Hitler, mind you - for using a play on words, "Betray Us" for Petraeus. Well, we're still in Iraq, that's for sure, even upped the ante with Afghanistan. Even with a Democratic President. Fool me once, shame on you... BetrayUs holds the cards - we can't even make fun of his name.  And now Van Jones has been pushed aside for calling Republicans "assholes". Oh my. They spend the summer shutting down public debate on health care, and a simple curse word is beyond the pale? Unlike those allowed Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck and scads more? (Even Rahm talking to Progressives?)
Face it. Any bill that comes out of this process is going to have the consistency of a warm bag of spit or a discarded condom. You can push back - it'll be hard, Obama dismantled the roots organizations, but you can still do it. Fight for the little things, build it up slowly, then once we're back in the game, we can talk about serious policy, some real bones with meat tossed our way. But for now, let's say "Bring Back Van Jones". Simple enough, 4 words, single syllables, fits on a placard, hard to misinterpret, shove it up Beck's ass. Because it's either his ass or ours, and I like my sex consensual.
Too many times I've thought of things Obama could say. "Van Jones is out there fighting for millions locked up in our rush to control crime, trying to help out the underprivileged caught in a bad jam, locked up more for lack of opportunity and poverty and bad public policy than any bad intent. Van Jones is out there fighting for green jobs that will make our planet healthier. I know I've watched the protests over the last 8 months and questioned a few people's sanity, and I questioned the wisdom of our rush to war back in 2003, so I'm certainly not going to toss out a good man giving his life, long hard work, to good causes just because of a cuss word or some doubt about people's competence in the worst security breakdown in US history."
But Obama didn't say that. I did. I keep waiting for those supposed words of wisdom. Obama said, "mush mush mushie kow tow kow tow thankee thankee thankee". And once you get used to eating shit, it's hard to shake your fondness for the taste. Thanks, but no thanks - time for a new course - non-cooperation, resistance, build back the spine. Reinstate Van Jones. We'll discuss the next step afterwards. But better to be dishing it out than to be on the ugly side of the feeding trough.
PS - inspired by a bunch of Jane Hamsher writing of late, including this one on the veal pen.

Blount's my new hero. Okay, in my Church of Bob kind of way, I get to have many temporary personal saviors, but just that matter-of-fact obvious response to some little fox terrier yipping in his face, well, he took the guy out. Not permanently, not like those cheap Boise State hits almost did last year when all the fuss really started. But let's just say Hout and others will think twice before getting in Blount's face again, perhaps using a bleacher chair as some extra ersatz courage-substitute for a fan when he was raining insults down on Blount. Though I think it was the high wall that really made the difference.

Now, let's see - Van Jones. Seems he made the mistake of crossing Glen Beck. And Fox. And so No Drama Obama set him free. How does he respond to the charges of those severe transgressions, wondering if Republicans might have let terrorists attack just to get their legislation through, and horrors of horrors, calling Republicans "assholes"? "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize." Oh my. Couldn't he have gotten one good upper-cut to the chin if he was going to take it for the team? And Beck got the spin he wanted, that it was all about Van Jones' questionable actions (like Glen Beck gets through a single show segment without going unhinged), instead of the real issue, that Van Jones was a founder of ColorOfChange, now rather successfully boycotting Beck for his racism, and getting sponsors to pull support.

Hey, didn't the Bush Administration just get outed by Tom Ridge for faking Home Security high color-code alerts to get Bush re-elected? Wasn't it Bush & Cheney who got caught on mic discussing "major league asshole" in reference to a NY Times reporter? And even another of my favs, Howard Dean, goes all limp dick on me - "But I don't think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11". The hell he doesn't, Howard, because there's never been an investigation, and every investigation of any other topic around the Bush Administration proved it was just as bad or worse than we suspected. What happened to "Eeeeaaaaggghhhh" as a poignant, heartfelt response?

But it's worse than that. Besides Van Jones getting his legs cut out from under him as one of the few (only?) progressives in the Obama White House, in as much of a surrender as Olberman now refraining from O'Reilly insults as a result of a boardroom Fox-MSNBC CEO agreement, Obama at the same time is whispering to Progressives, "hey dudes, you're not going to be too upset with me if I don't include the public option in the health care plan I'm finally getting around to writing?" Uh, hello? Yes, we will. Just like we're upset about no accountability for Bush era crimes, defending torture policies of the previous Administration, continuing the war policies of the previous Administration, continuing the corporate giveaways in the name of bailouts and stimulus.

However, aside from my appreciation of someone who knows how to respond to cowardly bullies, rather than someone who just knows how to quote movie lines ("if they bring a knife, you bring a gun"), let's take a moment to appreciate besides ColorOfChange one other group that should come out looking good in all this, 911truth.org. Because this is the "controversial" statement that Van Jones signed some time ago. Somehow we investigated Pearl Harbor, we investigated the Kennedy Assassination, we investigated Watergate, we investigated the Savings & Loan Crisis. But the idea of investigating 9/11 has always been pushed off as too partisan, or now, as "looking back when we should be looking forward". Well, let's look back and see how controversial 911truth's requests were, vs. say comparing the President to Hitler or pushing torture and mass eavesdropping of communications as state policy (all so quaintly in defiance of the Constitution):

The Statement

We Want Real Answers About 9/11

On August 31, 2004, Zogby International, the official North American political polling agency for Reuters, released a poll that found nearly half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of those in New York state believe US leaders had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and "consciously failed" to act. Of the New York City residents, 66% called for a new probe of unanswered questions by Congress or the New York Attorney General.

In connection with this news, we have assembled 100 notable Americans and 40 family members of those who died to sign this 9/11 Statement, which calls for immediate public attention to unanswered questions that suggest that people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.

We want truthful answers to questions such as:

1. Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
3. Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
4. Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?
5. Why haven't authorities in the U.S. and abroad published the results of multiple investigations into trading that strongly suggested foreknowledge of specific details of the 9/11 attacks, resulting in tens of millions of dollars of traceable gains?
6. Why has Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who claims to have knowledge of advance warnings, been publicly silenced with a gag order requested by Attorney General Ashcroft and granted by a Bush-appointed judge?
7. How could Flight 77, which reportedly hit the Pentagon, have flown back towards Washington D.C. for 40 minutes without being detected by the FAA's radar or the even superior radar possessed by the US military?
8. How were the FBI and CIA able to release the names and photos of the alleged hijackers within hours, as well as to visit houses, restaurants, and flight schools they were known to frequent?
9. What happened to the over 20 documented warnings given our government by 14 foreign intelligence agencies or heads of state?
10. Why did the Bush administration cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency was in Washington the week of 9/11 and reportedly had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, considered the ringleader of the hijackers?
11. Why did the 911 Commission fail to address most of the questions posed by the families of the victims, in addition to almost all of the questions posed here?
12. Why was Philip Zelikow chosen to be the Executive Director of the ostensibly independent 911 Commission although he had co-authored a book with Condoleezza Rice?

Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired Air Force colonel, a European parliamentarian, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, former Pentagon staff, and the National Green Party.

As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:

1. An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
2. Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
3. Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
4. The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry.

Given the importance of the coming election, we feel it is imperative that these questions be addressed publicly, honestly, and rigorously so that Americans may exercise their democratic rights with full awareness.

In closing, we pray and hope for the strength to approach this subject with wisdom and compassion so that we may heal from the wounds inflicted on that terrible day.

Signed,

[some poor sucker sacrificing their career and reputation]

Who knew that asking for accountability, for real answers, for an understanding of the events that drove us into disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hugely disrupted our rights at home would be controversial? You would think that a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 entitled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" had never happened. You'd think that hijacked commercial airplanes had never wandered around US airspace until they finally found their targets. 

I hope LeGarrette Blount runs for office one day - sometimes what our "Democracy" needs most is a few angry men. With fast reflexes.

[Taken lazily from a response]

People here confuse a boycott
against Whole Foods with some
kind of civil rights actions -
we're all Rosa Parks now.

People can't get their heads
around the fact that it's not
"free speech" if it comes with
repercussions. It makes little
difference whether I thrash
you with my cane or get you
fired or make you pay a load
of money or threaten your
family's safety - I'm finding
a way to shut your opinion up,
or at least others who might
try to go down that free speech
path.

Why can Robert Novak or Pat
Buchanan or Rush Limbaugh or Bill
O'Reilly express their opinion
with no repercussion (except
lots of pay), and John Mackey
can't? Mackey's certainly not
as controversial as the others,
and it's hard to see a
benefit like healthy food that
Novak and Buchanan have brought.


Except that alternative ideas
are healthy food, whether we
accept or reject them. The gut
needs some fiber to scrape along,
something to clear it out.

A diet based on easy-to-digest
pap is simply not healthy.
We need complex foods, we need
complex discourse. Get used to it.
Support it.

Brain food,  you've got to feed your
Mind.

Taken from a comment elsewhere regarding the "progressive" boycott against
Whole Fields for Mackey speaking his mind:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intimidating with a massive boycott is much the same as shouting people down.
You want to put the hurt to Mackey for stating his point of view because it didn't agree with yours. All sorts of excuses why that's okay - he tried to use his brand, he's anti-union,  whatever.

The point is, he said X which is not quite the same as Republican Y, and definitely
not the same as Death Panels and Euthanasia Z.

But to left-wing nutcakes, all ist egal. "He must be punished. He's not single payer,
he's not public option. The rich bastard is worried about costs and not us little
guys in the street without health care."

See what a tough company like Wal-Mart tells you - they're not going to be
writing Op-Eds, thats for sure, especially after watching Mackey have his neck
lopped off. Not to mention companies involved in the health care mess.

You *COULD* try telling Mackey why you disagree in intelligent terms,
coordinate people to *PERSUADE* him to your side of the argument,
since if he's writing Op-Eds, he *MIGHT* be in partial listening mode,
especially if 5000 of his closest friends and customers wrote him in
*SOMEWHAT* polite language with *COHERENT* arguments for specific
details - something that Obama and others have yet to effectively do.
Now, Mackey may not buy it, but he might buy *PART* of the logic
and then promote the parts that he finds make sense - maybe even
writing a followup to WSJ.

But one of the reasons Mackey went from liberal to libertarian is because
he found he was getting shit for trying to do something positive with
health food, that it was always that he didn't do enough for his employees
or customers, that there was no winning. Reinforcing that experience
will not bring any change.

I personally think that universal health coverage is good for employers,
letting them focus on an aspect of business most are not good with,
and freeing good workers to move around to where they're best used
and best equipped, not just being stuck with where they have insurance.
Plus people who have good insurance waste less crucial energy worrying
about that part when they are sick, letting them focus on the illness
and getting better. (I.e. mental health and comfort is an important part
of health)

And if progressives were in the mood to boycott someone, how come it
hasn't been an advertiser on Fox News? How come Rahm tells progressives
to STFU and they say "please sir, may I have another?" How come people
are acting like there's an actual bill with agreed upon content? Something's
weird in the whole scene. They say you can catch more flies with honey,
but everyone knows a flies are more attracted to a bowl of shit.

You would think someone building up a successful Green business from scratch, promoting vegetarian living, healthy foods, bringing it to new neighborhoods across the country would be something of a Progressive hero.

You'd be wrong.

Even before today, John Mackey had fallen out of favor with many progressives because as he notes, "he used to be a "democratic socialist" in college, but when he began a business and barely made money while being accused by workers of not paying them enough and customers of charging too high prices, he began to take a more capitalistic worldview and discovered the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Friedman."

Well, today, Mackey has earned the scorn and ire of the Progressosphere by doing the one thing that leftists cannot tolerate - he expressed his opinion. Not just any opinion - one that disagreed with the common agreed upon wisdom of the left, which is that we need to reform health insurance this year or else, though we don't know exactly what's going to be in it but it won't be single payer or have a public option and Big Pharma contributions will be capped so the industry doesn't suffer too much and whatever else gets watered down in bill writing and in committee and in reconciliation.

You might think that Progressives would be so irate with Obama and Blue Dogs and Rahm Emanuel, who keeps telling them to STFU every few weeks, picketing outside the White House and Congress. But no, we're supposed to boycott an ovo-vegetarian organic food-growing businessman/entrepreneur who brought health food to your neighborhood. (Who has the conch? Kill the Pig! Kill the Pig!)

Mackey is being pilloried for having such "right wing talking points" as "make personal insurance deductible like corporate is", "allow insurance competition across state lines", "take personal responsibility through healthy eating and exercise so you have less chance of getting sick", and "with boomers retiring and fewer paying into the system, we can't afford to keep adding expensive entitlements".

The cheap bastard then goes on to describe his attitude towards insurance - 100% coverage for employees with a high $2500 deductible that Whole Foods provides $1800 yearly for that can be rolled over if unused. It's a wonder the fruit shake makers haven't walked off the job already. And here:

[In 2006 Mackey announced] he would reduce his own salary to $1 a year, donate his stock portfolio to charity and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems. ... While CEO of Whole Foods Market in 2008, he earned a total compensation of just $33,831, which included a base salary of $1, and a cash bonus of $33,830.

Another reason progressives are mad at Whole Foods is they've discovered that organic foods are expensive. Who'da thunk it? Having heard once that "the best things in life are free", there's some confusion as to whether a whole grain muffin with organic carrot and radish is *not* one of the best things in life, or they're being overcharged. (After overdosing on a dozen or more Orange-Mango Zooms, I have to vote for the latter - only a good 3 shots of vodka would have improved the experience).

Anyway, not much else to say, I'm just gobsmacked. It's worth perusing the Mackie bio at Wikipedia just for his past - it's short, about 20 seconds, but a few gems, like:

    Whole Foods Market is one of only two Fortune 500 companies listed among the 25 Best Companies to Work For in 2005, a fact which Mackey ascribes to his pro-employee philosophy. He supports non-adversarial unions and advocates their legalization in the U.S. "It's illegal in the United States for there to be company unions -- special unions which are formed and controlled by the employees and managers of the company to represent their interests and collectively bargain on their behalf. These type of unions are legal in many countries such as Japan, but are illegal in the United States. Instead the law requires that all unions be outside unions. I believe this law should be repealed and that company unions should be as legal as any other kind of voluntary association."

Summon up all your outrage, and join the left's version of Town Hall protests, where we tea bag our own.

But it's also rather horrifying to see Progressives try to destroy someone economically for expressing their opinion on a matter that he has no control over. Someone even compared it to Rosa Parks. But what can Mackey do? He's not on Obama's team. He's not a Republican politician or someone with big connections. Pretty much the most he can do is say, "I apologize for expressing my opinion, I won't do it again" and it affects the progress of health reform not one iota. Corporates do this all the time - they don't "censor speech", they just de-employ the person who still supposedly has free (but slightly more impoverished) speech. But meanwhile the villagers are gathering their torches, insistent that this is how free speech is conveyed in more progressive quarters, when Quasimodo has the nerve to say, "But Master...." And when you see Quasi swinging from the belfry, ask not who he tolls for - he tolls for thee.

I know it's been fretting everyone worried about Hillary's unpaid creditors, those little vendors, a year back, but just in case you missed it, as of the end of June, her campaign is finally in the black. Actually she'd paid off everyone but Mark Penn by end of March and only had 4 others left by end of last December (she paid Penn $3 million in the 1st quarter leaving him the sole unpaid creditor at $2.3 million to finish off).

Folks at the NY Times must be relieved since even last June they were fretting that people like John Glenn had taken 20 years to pay off a $3 million debt, and that it would take Hillary years to pay off hers, and even in November there was a flurry of concern that fund-raising would distract from Hillary's new job at State (actually it looks like she's only had Penn to worry about since assuming office). Well, it took a year, but now Clinton can fully focus on her duties and those little creditors can sleep well at night.

Now for those who maintain concern about this type of thing, Rudy Giuliani still owes $2.9 million & Chris Dodd still had $300K to pay as of end of June, and John Edwards still had a $333K debt from 2004. Hard to imagine Edwards being a viable candidate in 2008 with such utter disregard for those little unpaid vendors. Guess that's how politics works.

PS - Hillary's been in Africa this week speaking against corruption, lack of repercussion for torture (hope she makes a talking tour here), lending some support for Africa's only female leader, and of course highlighting the horrific rape conditions in the Congo. And as one blogger notes, continuing our mad destructive self-defeating policy in Somalia.

The question greeted her in the Congo: "Thank you. Mrs. Clinton, we've all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country. The interference is from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Ms. Clinton and what does Mr. Mutombo think on this situation? Thank you very much."

How did Politico describe this? "...Clinton's temper flared on Monday when a Congolese university student asked her for her husband's thinking on an international financial matter." Kinda sorta. It doesn't quite reflect the zest & tanginess of "What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Ms. Clinton?"

So when Politico follows with Ms. Clinton's response, ''If you want my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband'' there's not that link of "through the mouth of Ms. Clinton" and "channeling my husband".

One report elsewhere even phrased its story as "what Ms. Clinton thought she heard". Oh my. If you watch the video with the sound up, you know exactly what Ms. Clinton heard - what's written above. Now, there's a question of whether the translator got it wrong. But even so, even if it was "What does Mr. Obama think through the mouth of Ms. Clinton, what does Mr. Mutombo think", the questioner is basically asking Ms. Clinton to just pass on the word of what the dudes think, not give her opinion. Yeah, probably she should have held anger, especially as it over-shadowed her anti-rape message. Imagine those African tours aren't easy, especially with everyone continually asking about your husband just back from North Korea.