Fundamental Concerns Regarding Race and The Race for President In America

This is very interesting - a post stolen from BuzzFlash:

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin’ redneck," like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it, a "light" burden.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me (Soft Skull, 2005, revised 2008), and of Speaking Treason Fluently, publishing this month, also by Soft Skull.

Meanwhile, Uncle Karl Is Still Getting Away With It

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Karl Rove no longer works for W. So, he should be able to testify, no?

It has been nearly two years since Congress first began asking questions about the firing of nine United States attorneys, who appear to have been removed for partisan political reasons. Mr. Rove may have been directly involved in these possibly illegal firings, but he has not told Congress what he knows. In defiance of a legally binding subpoena, he refused this summer to appear before the House Judiciary Committee.

Of course, with all the philandering and fornication George Bush's Administration is doing with our economy, it's easy to get distracted.

There are real victims in this scandal. Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama, was sentenced to seven years in prison as a result of a prosecution that appears to have been politically motivated. Mr. Siegelman is free pending an appeal, but he has already served part of the sentence and could end up returning to prison.

Hmmm, a Governor in Alabama perhaps getting tossed in jail for political reason? Wonder why the W is interested in not letting this cat out of the bag?

A Federal District Court judge appointed by President Bush ordered them to comply with the subpoenas, but the administration appealed the ruling. Attorney General Michael Mukasey is also doing his best to block Congress from getting the testimony it is entitled to. Clearly, the administration’s goal is to run out the clock, to get out of town before the subpoenas are enforced.

We know this to be the modus operandi based on nearly 8 years expience with the GOP in charge of our Whitehouse.

There are many vital principles at stake, but none is more important than the power of Congress itself. In this era of expanding presidential authority, Congress is a critical check on executive branch abuses. It cannot perform this function if it allows members of the executive branch to flout its subpoenas and its oversight.

But we know George W. Bush is very good at one thing - well, okay two things - Ignoring the facts and action based on his perception of reality, and 2) flouting the authority of congress.

Don't hold your breath for anything to come of this.

Summing Up Sarah

I think this author has it right regarding the complete lack of understanding Governor Palin had about the Bush Doctrine:

How could she not know this? For the same reason I don't know anything about European football/soccer standings, player trades, or intrigue. I am not interested enough. And she evidently has not been interested enough even to follow the news of foreign affairs during the Bush era.

A further point. The truly toxic combination of traits GW Bush brought to decision making was:

1) Ignorance
2) Lack of curiosity
3) "Decisiveness"

That is, he was not broadly informed to begin with (point 1). He did not seek out new information (#2); but he nonetheless prided himself (#3) on making broad, bold decisions quickly, and then sticking to them to show resoluteness.

We don't know for sure about #2 for Palin yet -- she could be a sponge-like absorber of information. But we know about #1 and we can guess, from her demeanor about #3. Most of all we know something about the person who put her in this untenable role.

Read the whole article before commenting. It's short. Click if you dare.

Even Rove Says The McSame Camp Isn't Exactly Honest

Wow - when Rove says you haven't been truthful, you have got to wonder.
Wow.

On a lighter note.

One More Summary of the Fundamental Flaws With The Palin McSame Ticket

In case you don't read the New York Times because you think they are an arm of the liberal wing - whatever that is - their editorial sums up much of the fundamental problem with Palin & by deduction, McSame for choosing her. I've cut and pasted the whole thing because it's short.

As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking.

If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible.

It was bad enough that Ms. Palin’s performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness.

What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications.

The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls “the mission” that they won’t even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country.

One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News’s Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don’t want “somebody’s big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state.”

We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries.

The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin’s thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush’s “doctrine” and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state.

But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain’s views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home.

Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? “You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission,” she said, that “you can’t blink.”

Fighting terrorism? “We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.”

Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush’s failed policy in Iraq was “God’s plan” did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd.

This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn’t pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today’s profound economic crisis.

In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation.

Why People Vote Republican

This is a very, very interesting perspective on the titular question and helps us understand why the GOP Faithful remain so despite evidence that they should not (if you dare click over, it's a long but worthy post):

...We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world...

...But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats...

...Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.

Oh, And By The Way, It's September 11th.

Looks like the GOP is still using September 11th for their own political gain, why else would Palin offer to get her "interview" started on this day?

Trouble is this - I'm stealing this post out right:

If somebody had told me on September 11, 2001 that seven years later Osama bin Laden would still be alive, and that the principal accomplishment of the U.S. military over the past seven years had been to install some theocratic Iranian allies in power in Baghdad, and had done so at the cost of 4,500 American and between a quarter of a million and a million Iraqi lives, I would have simply refused to believe them.

I would have said: "No. I have a very low opinion of George W. Bush. But even my opinion of him is not that low."

I did not then know what Bush said on August 6, 2001, to the briefer who warned him that Osama bin Laden was determined to strike inside the United States: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

We remember September 11, 2001. We will never forget.

Pop over to Brad's location to comment.

More Bad News For Palin & McSame: Why GOP Faithful Still Like This Woman Is Beyond Me

Well, isn't that nice. Sounds like the kind of ethics that GOP Faithful like to teach their children? Why do they still support this ticket?

Oh, and by the way, if you are a woman, you may want to seriously consider electing a woman with this kind of track record:

If on her watch Sarah Palin allowed women to be charged for rape kits, she has some serious explaining to do...

...In a state with the highest sexual assault rate in the nation, nearly three times the national average, she allowed sexual assaulted victims the opportunity be victimized twice: once by their attacker and again by the cold concept of justice (or lack thereof) that Wasilla offered.

Does that sound like compassionate conservatism?

Sarah Palin Speaks To The Press, And The Only Thing We Learn About Her Possible Policy Agenda Is That She's Up For War Against Russia

ABC has some excerpts from the televised interview that is slated for tonight. Of course, the whole thing has already been taped. We won't get any live interaction, but the splices from here.

Is This The Kind Of Leadership We Can Expect From A Vice President Sarah Palin?

When she claims to have done great service to the State of Alaska by securing (and having people pray for) the money for a pipeline, one need only dig a bit deeper to find out how successful she is in actually making what she says happen.

Certainly she proved effective in attracting developers to a project that has eluded Alaska governors for three decades. But an examination of the pipeline project also found that Ms. Palin has overstated both the progress that has been made and the certainty of success.

The pipeline exists only on paper. The first section has yet to be laid, federal approvals are years away and the pipeline will not be completed for at least a decade. In fact, although it is the centerpiece of Ms. Palin’s relatively brief record as governor, the pipeline might never be built, and under a worst-case scenario, the state could lose up to $500 million it committed to defray regulatory and other costs.

I've said it before, but we cannot afford the kind of leadership by faith over fact that the Palin/McSame ticket offer America. Come to your senses GOP faithful. If you need to have a come to Jesus moment to understand the problem here, then by all means, go ahead and have one.

Remember: WWJD?

Obama Sits With Letterman. Will Sarah Palin Do Likewise?

Any one taking odds as to if Palin will sit with Letterman like this?



Of course they won't have Palin answer question on Letterman. They will just decide that he was part of the "liberal media." Let's all just not bother accepting that excuse right now and call them what they are; afraid to do interviews with people who might disagree with them.

Dear Ms. Palin,

If you had nothing to hide, why do you need so much coaching on what to say?

What's Really Wrong With Sarah?

Given that ever since the GOP Convention, the McSame campaign has been keeping Palin under wraps says to me two things: 1) they are prepping her to meet the press, and 2) she's got something really nasty to hide that she really needs the preparation. If she was really as remarkable a candidate as they say she is, she wouldn't need the rehearsal. Really, that she hasn't even stepped in for an interview with the right wing nuts at Fox News is saying something. What is it that they are hiding from us? It looks an awful lot like they are trying to get their stories straight so that she looks less culpable in the police line up.

Palin, Davis said, "will do interviews, but she'll do them on the terms and conditions" dictated by McCain's campaign -- which is to say, according to a standard that applies to no other candidate for office anywhere in the country.

When you can't even go to answer questions straight up, this says to me that you are prepping for the lies because if you simply stick to the truths, you wouldn't need all the preparation and rehearsal to synch up the stories.

Perhaps the "liberal" media should exert some chutzpah of their own and boycott any kind of interview and "news" events at which Palin is at. Really, the Palin/McSame modus operandi does not lend itself to the exercise of a free press, upon which some Revolutionaries fought for our right to have. It demonstrates a complete disdain for the free press and a real need to control the message. And you thought you lived in a free country.

Spinning The News Media: GOP's Prime Expertise - Sub Title: Do You Want A President Who Can't Tell The Difference Between Slander And a Cliche?

The GOP political propaganda catapult has been pulled out so often to try and polish up the seriously lousy news generated by their inability to run the government and make wise decisions on the behalf of the people, they have perfected their skills in delivering "catnip" for the media to distract us from what really matters.

The McCain campaign on Wednesday issued an Internet ad that said Obama was talking about Palin and said of Obama: "Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes."

Obama began a discussion of education at a Norfolk high school on Wednesday by assailing McCain's campaign.

"What their campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it's catnip for the news media," Obama said.

Remember the game we used to play in grade school, derogatorily labeled "smear the queer?" Rarely did we ever correctly identify the "queer." In fact, some of the "queers" were actually hiding as bullies. The smear worked really well to ostracize the target of the slander.

This is exactly the weakness that the GOP exploits time and again. It doesn't matter if the slander is true because once it is out there, it's out there. What McSame's campaign actually has done, effectively, was try to smear Obama with the above statement. Of course, that's the point. They know how the blame game works and they play it quite well. But shut up if you play it as well, you cursed fool liberal!

Any one else out there sick of the childish games the GOP continue to use to exploit the willingly fooled American people? THE DAYS OF LEADERSHIP BY FAITH OVER FACT ARE OVER. We need to stand up and tell these "blame gamers" to sit down. If you cannot come up with a credible point that helps us understand your position on the issues that matter to us, then take your name calling back to the rock you crawled out from under. And, if you are overly sensitive to the use of common vernacular or sayings, expressions that we all know to be cliche but useful, do you have the temerity to stand up to the evildoers who are saying much more egregious things about you and are actually going to act on them? I don't think so.

Are the republicans running for office so weak as to not be able to take what is said in context and understand it's meaning? Obviously, based on the McSame's message today, not a chance. It's offensive and foolish. Or they are insulting us by thinking we can't tell the difference and try to play us to vote for them. Either way, it smacks of downright lunacy.

Do you want a President in the Whitehouse who cannot tell the difference between slander and a cliche? I think not. Really, it's the same kind of deductive reasoning that leads us into wars we don't need (e.g. George W. Bush and Iraq). This mistake made by the McSame folks is just one minor example of the kind of logic and deductive reasoning that they will deploy if they are placed in the Whitehouse. And frankly, we should not stand for it. This country cannot afford to appoint people who make such foolish mistakes.

Here's Obama speaking for himself about this concern

The Bridge to Nowhere Goes Nowhere, but Shoot, Let's Build A Road To It Anyway

Why? Because Palin was great at getting earmarks for her State and they were going to spend it otherwise they would have to turn it back to the Fed.

Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone -- because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.

Hmm, does that sound like a Woman who is bent on earmark reform?

Unlike McCain, though, Palin has not been a purist on earmarks. As Alaska governor, she sought and obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks for the state, and as mayor of Wasilla, she hired lobbyist and former Stevens staffer Steve Silver to steer federal money to her town. Some of her own earmark projects even landed on McCain's list of questionable congressional pork barrel spending when she served as mayor from 1996 to 2002.

And if that incongruity isn't enough to toss the GOP Faithful for a loop, how about her practice of charging the people for her nights at home?

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

Well, does that sound like the kind of ethical practice you want a heart beat away from the Presidency? I think we all aught to make the Anchorage Daily News a regular part of our reading in the lead up to the election.

Two Disperate Points, Same Conclusion

Have a gander at this graph of our wonderful employment numbers, sponsored by your current GOP leadership. BTW, did you ever wonder why, when the number goes down the politicians always claim a causal relationship between what they have done and the number dipping, but when the number goes up there is an increase in denial of responsibility?

But what I found interesting in this trend chart is the ebb and flow of it. If you look over the Clinton Years, the number was extremely high at the start, but shrunk substantially and continuously over his 8 years. In direct contrast of the last 8, it's been rocky. I don't see four more years of republican rule fixing that trend.

On another note, you have to wonder about the credibility of a candidate who can't even get the small details correct.

McCain himself said yesterday, "You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor, and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!"

Someone should really tell McCain to be more careful with his words:

In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006.

Palin, so far as I can tell, has precisely said she auctioned the plane on eBay, without confirming whether or not it actually sold.

Selling planes at a discount to your campaign contributors? Sounds rather fishy and more in line with the GOP culture of corruption than some upstanding individual I want to hold up as a role model for my children.

Who has whose hands in whose pockets? Does the Palin/McSame ticket sound like the party for the ordinary citizen and representation, "of the people, for the people, and by the people?" Not to me.

Mesasge, Vote OBAMA.

Just A Quick Note On The GOP Convention

Just quickly, on last night's speechifying by McSame - One has to wonder when the message of the GOP is about change when it has been in charge for the last 8 years is really authentic. Truly

It's like staging a revolution against yourself -- saying that the Republicans have got to go so the Republicans can move in and clean up the mess.

I find no means by which McSame/Palin will fix what they and their party led us into these past years. When they suggest:

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.

The only message I carried away from the GOP convention was that it will be impossible for McSame and Palin to change in such as a way as to change what their party created. Indeed, Einstein may be right here - we cannot solve the problems we have using the same thinking we used to create them. The true measure of the McSame/Palin ticket will be to prove to us that they will be different than the last four years. So far, they have only given us more of the same, not the change they promise.

The Vetting of Sarah Palin: The GOP Celebrity Gambit

The Days of Leadership By Faith Over Fact - perfected by the W, Rove and Co - are over. Yet, the McSame campaign has foisted enough mojo on the GOP faithful to make an Evangelist faint. So, instead of the buying the insipid rhetoric spilled out over the anticlimactic GOP convention, we must examine whether McSame and his Gal Pal Palin are qualified to do the job based on their actions thus far.

Indeed, actions speak louder than words - Don't tell us. Show us that you will be good for America, if you can, by doing good things for America. If the vetting of Sarah Palin is an indication of how good the McSame administration will be going forward, there is large room for improvement and plenty of evidence as to why we should not trust them to do the job.

Remember how easy it was for the W, Rove and Co. to fondle their way around the intelligence to prove we needed to invade Iraq? I'm sure that was a complicated boondoggle. If McSame and his cronies can't even find a Veep candidate with less blemishes than Palin, we are in for deep, deep shit under a McSame/Palin administration and some dangerous decision making.

Take a look at this news, I just discovered in an email from a friend:

Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin attended five colleges in six years before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987.

In almost all the college admissions programs I know, Palin would have a terrible time getting into graduate school with that track record. Five schools in six years? That is a clear indication that there is something up with Palin, something amiss in her ability to accomplish difficult tasks and sticking with them. Some one who cannot last more than a few semesters in any one school is a clear indication of some one with many issues, let alone five different institutions in as many years.

Does this fact cast a pall of suspicion over her qualifications to do the Veep Job? For me, yes. Even more important, it says to me that the McSame modus operandi is to not do a thorough job and make hasty decisions based on politics over qualifications. Certainly, his decision to select Palin was a, cold, hard ball, intentionally political one. Had he really thought he was putting "Country First," I can think of a dozen or so other Veep candidates in the GOP that would have been better suited for the job. Instead, they traded quality for celebrity. But I thought they were anti-celebrity, clearly demonstrated by their ruse to taint Mr. Obama as such.

So, why are the GOP not outraged here? Perhaps they are caught up in the "Celebrity" of Sarah Palin. I would challenge those who are thinking Republicans - and even those who believe Reagan was a better President than George Washington - to conduct their own diligence on Palin. As to if she is truly qualified for the job of Veep? I don't think so. As to that she has elevated herself to Celebrity Status, most definitely. If the Cult of Celebrity is not a reason to vote for a President (according to McSame and his army of propagandists), it should be likewise for Vice Presidents.

Should we vote for a vice president that, perhaps, has dropped or been kicked out of four colleges before actually finding a sympathetic institutions from which to graduate? I don't think so.

Who should we put in the next advertisement next to her for her comparison? Like they painted Paris Hilton next to Barak Obama, it would be Palin next to....I don't know....who should we put there....

Blog on friends, blog on all.

GOP: The New American Jingoists

Is it me, or does any one else find the use of a Navy Seal's heroic story to sell us a President and Vice President a reprehensible practice? Of course, the W, Rove and Co perfected this tactic long ago - using slain soldiers as rationale to toss more flag draped bodies onto the C-130's headed for American soil. The McSame/Palin camp are following the well worn GOP political playbook.

This nasty political practice is not only real dirty, a ruse to spur patriotism among ordinary people, but outright offensive. The piece that makes the use of Michael Monsoor's story particularly despicable is that Mike Monsoor died in Iraq when he really didn't have to - Iraq is the war we didn't need, shouldn't have entered, and was brought to you by the GOP.




That Michael Monsoor is a hero is not in doubt. Indeed he was. But using his story for political gain? Disgusting. Showing this video at the GOP convention has obvious political aims. In short, it demonstrates how shameless those leading the GOP are. They are using a hero's story to foist their political agenda. Instead of standing on the shoulders of great men, they are stepping on the boddies of our fallen heros. For that, I say, shame on them.

In the end, the "America or Country First" slogan places jingoism at the fore of the whole Republican modus operandi. But using it to tout their candidates as the best for America is also offensive. This is more of the dualistic practice perfected by the W, Rove and Co. political propaganda machine of the "you're either with us, or against us" fame (where did that put Switzerland in 2001, btw?).

The implication the GOP convention slogan is that if you are not for McSame and Palin, you are not for America. Don't fall into that trap people. It's a simple political parlor trick. Add the slogan to the shameful use of heroes (our war dead and injured, caused by a war we didn't need) into the political cocktail the GOP are pouring in Minnesota over this week, and you have a lot of drunk republicans: the New American Jingoists, who believe George Bush was Right (despite all evidence to the contrary), and McSame and Palin can do no wrong as long as it's in the name of "America" or "Country First."

This political practice (using soldiers for political gain) is shameful and the slogan is divisive set out to polarize our great nation even further. I'm not for McSame or Palin, but I'm definitely for America, but don't hate me because I disagree with you (but I expect some of you will, which is just QED).

I'll leave you with this report just for fun...

The Trouble Is That The Laws A Vice President Palin Would Vote For In Congress Would Inflict Her "Morality" Into Our Private Lives

I think this sums up the fundamental problem with the GOP Platform regarding the boondoggle Bristol Palin put her family in:

The point is that the Palins were able to make all these decisions according to the dictates of their own consciences, formed by their own religious convictions, within the privacy of their own family and according to its values and traditions. What they decided is nobody's business but theirs; the fact that they were free to arrive at their own decision is everybody's business.

The particular brand of social conservatism in which Sarah Palin quite evidently believes deeply would deny other American families and other American women the freedom to make these same intimate decisions according to the dictates of their own consciences, religious convictions and traditions.

So you see, the hypocrisy is clear. It's okay for the Palin Family to make such dramatic decisions in private. The GOP position is clear as well. They don't want you to have the same liberty. I suggest a new slogan for the GOP: Vote GOP: The Anti-Liberty Party.

What's Wrong With The Big Dick?

Any one else out there wondering why Dick Cheney is not slated to speak at the GOP love-fest for McSame and Palin?

Republicans awarded one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut senator, a prime-time speaking slot Tuesday night as they courted millions of independent voters essential to McCain's presidential hopes.

Bush — not so much.

And Vice President Cheney not at all.

You have got to wonder what's up with the GOP when they can't trot out their own leadership for fear of losing an election. Since when has a sitting president and Veep become a liability? When they have the track record of Bush/Cheney.

A Sign Of The Times

Snapped this picture today. In case you can't read the sign, it says, sadly:

We have discontinued complimentary coffee and tea
Due to State Budget Cuts
In order to use funds to offer students as many courses as possible.
Hot & Cold water are available
Thank you for understanding these tough budget choices.

What If You Were Mitt or Joe?

Just wondering at this point, given McSame's super quality pick for Veep, what it might be that Mitt and Joe were feeling given they lost the post to Palin. Or any other of the possible Veeps on the short list, for that matter:

Two senior Republican officials close to Mitt Romney and Tim
Pawlenty said they had both been rudely strung along and now "feel manipulated."

"They now know that they were used as decoys, well after McCain had decided not to pick them," one Republican involved in the process said.

The subliminal message of McSame's selection of Palin is that the others on the list were of a lesser quality. Imagine that? What could be so offensive about Mitt, Lieberman or the others that put Palin ahead of them? I wouldn't want to guess.

The trouble is that there is a legion of self-righteous right wingers who were quick to label teens who were pregnant as something like the spawn of Satan, and now have jumped to the aid of McSame and Palin obviating their own hypocrisy. Of course, if you criticize Palin for her position, the reichwingers are in full tilt trying to spin you as some kind of loon. For example, just look at the title of this news paper article I found linked on johnmccain dot com:

Ignore the Chauvinists. Palin Has Real Experience.

So, if I don't think that Palin is fit to be Veep, I'm a chauvinist by default? I don't think so. Of course, those who were bashing Hillary would not stand for being labeled as such, but insist on flogging those who don't like Palin with much more demonizing terminology.

Did you ever wonder why that when the GOP types get criticized about their decisions they feel they need to use derogatory labels to foist upon us their holier than thou stance? I'm constantly mystified as to that line of argument, but I understand the tactic. The reason they use it is because they have no plausible line of argument to pursue. With out slinging the hate, they have nothing on which to stand.

Abstinence Only Education At Work

Just wondering, in light of Palin's latest news, if she really believed in Abstinence only education now?

Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin's five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

Obviously, it didn't work in this case.

Meanwhile...Back At The GOP Convention....

Bush finds a convenient reason to back out of the speechifying to save his McSame pal from being too closely associated with the W, the Sitting Hero of the GOP.

The marquee act for opening night just canceled, but some Republicans couldn't be happier.

All year, Republican strategists have worried about showcasing President Bush at the Republican National Convention when his standing with the public lies at a near-record low.

A day late and a dollar short, he's backing out to prepare for a hurricane that has already landed on our shores.

Hurricane Gustav has crashed into the all-but-deserted Louisiana coast. The eye has landed southwest of New Orleans.

Don't you think that, given Gustav has already landed, the President should have been ready to respond weeks ago? Looks like Gustav is working to save W and McSame from being painted even closer together than their infamous hug.

More Proof The Repulbicans are Opperating With a Seriously Different Percieved Reality

Take a look at this chart and you will see why my prior post about the selection of Palin will polarize the already separated country even further is dead on correct. The reason why republicans view the McSame/Palin ticket is just the cure for George W's mess is that they are perceiving the same situation extremely differently.

And, we all know that truth is a slave to perception, not vice versa. Which is exactly why polarizing the country even further is the single best strategy for GOP to play right now. We have seen it work for them in 2004, and they are gambling that it will work again to collect the Presidential trifecta - three terms of the current modus operandi.

If you ask your typical republican if things are all dandy under George W., you can understand why they love McSame. "Give us another steaming helping of war in Iraq, profit for the war time machinery we know as Blackwater and Halliburton. Give is more foreclosures and bail outs of corporate America while screwing the little guy who cannot afford health insurance even though they need a quadruple bypass."

Polarizing

You have got to wonder, seriously - although it's fun to have a field day discrediting McSame's choice for Veep, what he is thinking here. I had two thoughts about this.

First, McSame must be getting the same folks to counsel him as have been giving advice to the President these past eight years. Really, selecting Palin seems like a Rovian device, but without the smarts behind it.

Two, the whole ploy is a move to polarize the country even further (what happened to the "I'm a Uniter not a Divider," gambit one rightly should wonder) and confused the undecided voters. It seems to me like this might backfire on them.

For example, Senator Boxer has some legit points here:

"The vice president is a heartbeat away from becoming president, so to choose someone with not one hour's worth of experience on national issues is a dangerous choice.

"If John McCain thought that choosing Sarah Palin would attract Hillary Clinton voters, he is badly mistaken.

"The only similarity between her and Hillary Clinton is that they are both women. On the issues, they could not be further apart.

"Sen. McCain had so many other options if he wanted to put a woman on his ticket, such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe -- they would have been an appropriate choice compared to this dangerous choice.

Really, she's right. There are many Republican women out there who would have truck loads more experience than Palin. Why did he select a running mate that he really did not know and has no experience at all at the National or International level (aside wanting to give liberal bloggers a field day)? Well, perhaps they are doing the only thing that the Republicans know how to do well - to polarize the nation even further and hope that there are more people in their base to trump those at the other end.

Certainly, it's a Rovian ploy, but I don't see the same kind of Rovian genius in it. In fact, given how much the GOP has been harping on Obama not having any experience, the duplicity and hypocrisy of his decision has to be obvious - even to the blind "patriots" proclaiming to vote republican no-matter-what, and down right offensive to every thinking republican out there.

Del Martin Passes

I'm still trying to figure out how two sweet old women getting married damage the institution of marriage. Near as I can tell, the wedding of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon only elevates the institution and serve as a model for us all.

Sadly, Del Martin died today:

*** STATEMENT ***

MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S STATEMENT ON THE PASSING OF DEL MARTIN


Today, San Francisco lost a local and national leader, Del Martin.

For over half a century, Del Martin, along with her loving spouse, Phyllis Lyon, served as an activist for women’s rights and the LGBT community. The marriage of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon on June 16, 2008, marked an historic milestone on our country’s road to true freedom and equality. Del laid the groundwork for all those who want a life of dignity, and we are forever in her debt. The greatest way we can honor the life work of Del Martin, is to continue to fight and never give up, until we have achieved equality for all.

Our deepest sympathies go out to Del’s family, her spouse, Phyllis, her daughter, Kendra, and all those who mourn the loss of this great and pioneering woman.

As a mark of respect for Del Martin, I have ordered the flags at City Hall and the LGBT Pride Flag on Market and Castro Streets to be flown at half-staff from now until sunset, on Thursday, August 28, 2008.

Having met Del and Phylis in person numerous times, I recognize the courage it takes to help lead a subjugated population out of the closet. That I would wish us all to have a small amount of her courage; it would certainly raise humanity another level.

Biden? = Boring

The first reaction I had to this news this AM was BORING. There is no risk involved in having Biden as a running mate. While this choice may be wise, I was looking for a complete change out - anti-incumbent all around. Biden is definitely not representing some one from outside the beltway.

But the American general populace may eat this selection up. We are about to find out in a big way.

Have A Great Weekend

I suppose if you have seven homes from which to choose to visit over the weekend, one would be having a better weekend than some folks in Afghanistan who will be burring their family members:

U.S.-led coalition forces killed 76 Afghan civilians in western Afghanistan on Friday, most of them women and children, the Afghan Interior Ministry said.

Nice war George.

How Many Homes Should The New President Own?

It's one thing to have a house in your home town, a place in DC because you work there as a Senator, and then perhaps, if you have the wearwithall to own a vacation home in some lovely location, but not knowing how many homes you own? My goodness.

"Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?' And he said, 'I'm not sure, I'll have to check with my staff,'" Obama said with a tone of incredulousness at an outdoor event here.

"If you don't know how many houses you have, then it's not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong," he said. "But if you're like me, and you got one house, or you are like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so they don't lose their home, then you might have a different perspective."

The audience laughed and clapped, and then Obama added: "And, by the way, the answer is, John McCain has seven homes." That, it turns out, is true.

Raises an interesting question: How in touch with middle and average America can a person be if he doesn't have a clue how many homes he owns and has to check with his staff to discover he's got SEVEN! Holy Bleep!

"The Original Maverick?"

Does any one reach for the vomit bag when they watch McSame's "Original Maverick" commercial spots? I'm mean, come on, what's the definition of Maverick?

A maverick is a person who shows independence of thought or action, a non-conformist or rebel.

Really, McSame looks like Bush in a different wrapper. Calling himself a maverick is tarnishing those who actually fit the label.

There's a reason why they labeled Mavericks with the name - because you have to be out of your mind and a complete non-conformist to jump into deep waters with a high probability that you could lose your life for doing it. These guys are Mavericks:



McSame doesn't demonstrate one iota of Maverick qualities in my book. And, he looks like a fool for claiming so. Smells like more votes for the Dems in November.



Here's an interesting question for the day - Since when does discrediting a sitting president the modus operandi for the incumbent party? This is a clear sign that the W, Rove and Co has screwed the pooch so many times while they controlled the helm of the good ship America.

Here's one view on the matter:


Or, this view:

Proof That Prayer Works?

Okay, how many economists does it take to explain how prayers work to decrease the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump?

"Prayer is the answer to every problem in life," said Twyman, founder of the Pray at the Pump movement, whose members huddle around gas pumps and ask the Almighty to lower gasoline prices.

"If the whole country keeps on praying, we can bring down prices even more, to even less than $2," Twyman said.

What? Is the whole Country smoking crack now? Don't we have something better to pray for than the cost of gas at the pump?

If prayer worked, might we not pray for no more war? No more killing? No more terrorism? No more Russians in Georgia? Another gold medal for Michael Phelps? Come on, people. This is a clear sign that for some, their priorities are in the wrong place.

Why would we bother God with such trivial matters? Praying for lower prices at the pump amounts to really selfish SOBs, no?

Paris Hilton Has Some Fun Script Writers

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

If nothing else, we find that Paris has some funny writers at hand. Will Hilton's parents still contribute to McSame?

Remind Me Again: Who's Paying For Iraq?

Our economy is in the toilet and Iraq is looking at an enormous surplus?

Soaring oil prices will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year’s end, according to an American federal oversight agency. But Iraq has spent only a minute fraction of that on reconstruction costs, which are now largely borne by the United States.

Remind me again; Who's side are the Iraqi's on? How much is this "Global War on Terror costing the American people? You can look here, or here. Either way, you have to wonder how the Bush Administration got our National Priorities all twisted around to lace us so tightly to Iraq as the first ever Nation Welfare State covered by another (that'd be USA).

It's ironic, no? I thought the Republicans were against welfare and other social programs, but it seems like we are married to Iraq and there's nary a dowry contribution to be found beyond the lives we sucked out of them for the privilege of becoming inextricably linked to the big kitty litter box that is Iraq.

Was Jefferson Right?

Perhaps, given the mortgage mess, Jefferson was smarter than all of us put together:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Do You Feel Safe Under The Bush Regime? Sub Title: Requiem for The Fourth Amendment

Now that we've had almost 8 years of experience in George Bush's America, are you feeling good about it? Not me.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel one iota safer because of the W, Rove and Co.'s actions since Nine Eleven. Now that I typed that, perhaps I should re-label the circus at the Whitehouse because Rove should be indicted and has been absent for while, but he's still responsible for some very shady and reprehensible, if not unethical, immoral and illegal, political practices (read: signing statements). Let's call the lame duck Whitehouse the Condi and Georgie Show for now. But I digress.

Since Nine Eleven, the common myth is that "we are safer here given that we fought them over there." In reality, the insideous nature of the Condi and Georgie's practice is that we didn't need much saving from the terrorists, more than we needed saving from ourselves. Remember the Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, in Georgie and Condi's America, that goes right out the window.

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop computer or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This clearly falls in to the WTF category? Do you feel safer in George Bush's America? Not me! Turn on your iTunes, click on Mozart's Requiem, and turn it up loud because our rights have died and were downright squashed, spindled, and mutilated by George Bush and his crack team of GOP politicos.



.....Rex, Rex

Been Gone; But I'm Back Again

After a protracted trek to Europe with my family, I've finally dug out of the mundane chores of deleting email and such. My brain is no longer cluttered with trying to get through the weeds at work.

I don't have an extended rant, as mainly, the holiday was relaxing and I didn't pay much attention to the news. We were not there the same time Obama made his romp around. And, we didn't talk much politics beyond which flavor of Gelato to secure on the day at hand.

What has been nagging at me as of late is who are the Veep Running Mates going to be. Does any one have a line on this as of yet? I heard some where that Hillary has pulled out of that contention and won't be joining Obama. I've heard some inclining that Carley Fiorina is doing a lot of talking for McSame. Could it be that there are two Vice Presidential candidates that are women?

Any speculation out there? If you were a betting person, who would you put money on to be the Veep candidates in each camp?

Exxon's Supreme Bonus

In case you didn't read this in the paper today, but the Supreme Court Decided to hand a sizable gift to Exxon today - not much unlike what you do when you fill up your tank with their gas, but much bigger.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the record $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp had been ordered to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska.

The nation's highest court ruled that the punitive damages should be limited to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million.

Hmmm, the Fat Cats just got fatter:

It took the company just under two days to bring in $2.5 billion in revenue during the first quarter of 2007.

Nice for them. What does that mean for us, and the people of the great State of Alaska who have been paying for the Valdez incident since it happened?

Blogging Fun For Tuesday...

Finish these sentences...

George W. Bush is....

History will find that George W. Bush was....

In ten years, George W. Bush will...

The Fundamental Problem With Gasoline Pricess....is.....

The fundamental problem behind high gas prices is that the supply of oil has not kept up with the rising demand across the world.

I Call Bull Shit here - Demand isn't increasing, it's shrinking as prices go up.

There has to be more to this than the old economic supply demand curve. Perhaps, it's how the commodities brokers are jacking up the price per barrel because they can. Or is it because the Big Oil Companies are more interested in record breaking profits than they are in lower pump prices?

Come on, the Saudis are sitting on an enormous reservoir of oil that is allready have large number of straws sucking out crude. The solution isn't to drill now for oil found ten years from now. Bush can't tell that his inability to convince the House of Saud to change their output says to me that he's a) either got zero cred with the Saudi Sheiks and couldn't convince them to take a shit on their royal toilets over an outhouse sitting in the desert sun let alone get them to increase production, or b) the Bush family is in collusion with the Saudis to make more money for their own heirs. Either way, it's not a pretty picture.

If you bother to read the President's Radio Address, you will notice that absolutely NONE of his four proposed "solutions" involve the introduction of new technologies, green energy, or alternative and sustainable energy solutions. Why? I think you know.

Blog on Friends. Blog on all.

What's Wrong With The Way The President Thinks?

Many things, I'm sure, are wrong with the dualistic approach the President deploys regularly to convince the American People that he is right to violate our rights. But really, don't you think that it's time he stopped using Nine Eleven to shape policy and make decisions? Truly, you can't say this and be right:

The enemy who attacked us on September the 11th is determined to strike this country again.

Those guys died in the planes they drove as weapons of mass destruction. They can't by default, attack us again. Sure, he's talking more generally, but trying to reduce the rationale for violating our rights and illegally wire tap us into one sentence doesn't cut the mustard in my book.

Sure, we need folks to go after the terrorists that might do us harm, but what of the harm the President has done to us? Who is going to protect us from him?

"What Time Is It? It's Time For A Change"

Craig Newmark is like the Woody Allen of the internet, but without the narcissistic neuroticism.

Here's a set of videos that you won't see on your local MSM news outlet, regardless of what flavor you subscribe to.

Enjoy and blog on friends, blog on all.

Interesting Letter Addressed to Obama

Found this forwarded by a parent in our local PTA:

There are, of course, constructive roles the federal government can play. Welcome, for example, would be actions encouraging broad dialog to clarify the institution’s overarching aim, policies promoting more equitable and stable funding, measures increasing support for research and innovation, and, of course, comprehensive programs addressing poverty, cultural deprivation, environmental degradation, and other problems directly affecting student performance.

But attempts to manipulate what teachers and students actually do must be entirely abandoned. The inherent complexity of the task, its dynamic, constantly changing nature, the importance to its success of imagination, flexibility and creativity, and the gross inadequacy of presently available standardized measures of performance, make centralized control of the classroom dangerously counterproductive.

You can electronically sign the letter if you like.

I found it to be good on points, but short on real plans on how to fix America's schools.

What happens when the Libby Case is No Longer An "On Going Legal Matter?"

Scotty McMessage McClellan is no longer delivering messages that the W, Rove and Co like. And, he has a number of good points.

Those of you who followed the Libby case, and the Plame leak know that the W, Rove and Co repeatedly said they would come clean when it is no longer an on going legal matter. Moreover, the president initially said that those responsible would be held accountable (which never really happened either, has it?

Well, the case is over. Libby was convicted and subsequently pardoned by his pal the President. Do we yet have a full testimony from the President about what happened in his Whitehosue revolving around this?"

This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it," he said. "And they have refused to.

No surprises. These folk who are about to leave us in the worst fiscal and geopolitical crisis this country has seen, well, in just about ever, won't be forthcoming about any of their antics, favoring "history" to be the judge. Those of us who have lived through nearly 8 years of the GOP brand of chicanery hunger for some one to be brought to justice for it.

Don't hold your breath, but it's never too late for articles of impeachment.

Mr. Bush Makes A Proposal With Long Legs and Sustainablility in Mind...NOT.

Of course, the solution to solve the gas crisis now is to drill now for oil later? Any one else having flash backs to Whimpy's slogan, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today?"

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

Of course, the Saudis are not cooperating with Bush, and they have oil now - plenty to off set the nut balls in the oil industry who are "bwaahaa haa-ing" their way to their Cayman Bank accounts with soaring profits.

Let's see, where did George W. Bush grow his industrial roots? Big oil? Hmmm...why hasn't he come up with something more creative like the Congress is trying to hammer out. Really, oil is evaporating as a resource. The price is only going to be temporarily off set until we supplant the strong addiction to oil with another source of energy - solar, wind, whatever. But drilling for more oil now only puts a small, short term dent in a hemorrhaging idea.

Of course, the folks with the "fuck the fish agenda, let's drill for oil now so I can drive SUV 100 miles round trip to that job that doesn't cover the cost of the gasoline to propel it" don't have any clue how that will affect their tuna sandwich that they crave for lunch. So, by all means, George. Have at it.

If you really want to see who the opening up of ANWAR and off shore drilling helps most of all, look at who's stepping up to the plate to back the measure - Big Oil, and do they have have our best interests in mind? Can you say 10 dollars a gallon at election time?


P.S. what happened to Iraq helping out to pay down their war debt with oil resources and revenue, btw?

What About This MarriageThreatens Your Marriage?

In the odd chance that you live in a bubble (which arguably, some could stipulate the President does), you would not have known that Dell Martin and Phyllis Lyon got hitched again yesterday. Have a look at this happy couple and ask yourself, how are straight people harmed by these two getting married?

I'm still awaiting a plausible rationale that helps me understand how two octogenarians getting married hurt the institution of marriage. What is it about heterosexual marriage that needs protection? Because the "bible" tells us so, doesn't apply unless you adhere to a strict interpretation of the document. Where's the harm?

Really, I might argue the contrarian - in fact, the very act of Dell Martin and Phyllis Lyon getting married only strengthens the institution - as they have been faithful to one another for a lot longer than many heterosexual marriages have lasted.

If one was really concerned about what harms marriage, perhaps we should outlaw divorce first. Or alternatively, ban celebrity marriages as they end in divorce at a higher rate of those in the ordinary community. Or, even more to the point, let's ban marriages between smokers or fat people as the statistics actually indicate that if children are born to obese or smoking parents, there is a higher probability of those children following suit (which is inherently bad for their health).

So, until some one can prove that there is a harm to their marriage because these two women got married, I'll stand and celebrate with them. Why not join in the fun! There are going to be a lot of very happy, salubrious parties to jump into. Where's the harm in that?

The Foolishness of George Bush

When asked what kind of advice he would give to the Syrians, here's what the Republican President said yesterday:

Q (As translated.) To both of you, what specific, concrete requests do you wish to make or send to the Syrian President, Bashar Assad, so that he normalize his relations with the West, and of course to achieve stability in Lebanon and in the rest of --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, my message would be, stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists; serve as a constructive force in the Middle East to help the advance of a Palestinian state; make it clear to Hamas that terror should stop for the sake of peace; and make it clear to their Iranian allies that the West is serious when we talk about stopping them from learning how to enrich, which would be the first -- a major step for developing a bomb; and to make it clear to their Iranian allies that Hezbollah is a destabilizing force for not only Lebanon but elsewhere.

That would be my message. I'd make it clear to him that there is a better way forward for Syria. And Nicolas and I talked about this subject today.

What? Are the Syrians teenage girls on an abstinence only education diet of health education?

What about the current situation in Iraq? Does he have some advice for the Iraqis?

Q I'd like to ask you a question first, Mr. President. (As translated.) And then a question to the President of France. (Speaking English.) President Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that talks on a status of forces agreement are at an impasse, or a dead end -- not dead, but in trouble. How do you break this impasse, and are the conditions that the United States have set forward in support so far non-negotiable?

(As translated.) And to you, President, is the Franco-American relationship the privilege, the priority number one relationship in the transatlantic context?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Olivier, if I were a betting man, we'll reach an agreement with the Iraqis. You know, of course we're there at their invitation; this is a sovereign nation. And therefore, we're working hard with the elected government of Iraq about, you know, U.S. presence and coalition presence, in a way that the elected government is comfortable.

And it's interesting to be working with a democracy where, you know, people are trying to prepare the ground to get something passed in the parliament, for example, or the free press is vibrant. But we're going to work hard to accommodate their desires. It's their country.

And at the same time, we believe that a strategic relationship with Iraq is important. It's important for Iraq. It's important for the United States. It's important for the region. And I repeat to you that whatever we agreed to, it will not commit future Presidents to troop levels, nor will it establish permanent bases.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes. And thanks for the question -- in English. (Laughter.)

Too bad the President has been making serious bets on Iraq wagering American GI lives and hefty sums of debt to the Chinese and other (which are tantamount to taxes deferred to prop up the new welfare state that is Iraq).

And, I cannot believe George Bush is still suggesting that we are there "at the invitation" of the Iraqis? We are no more there at the invitation of the Iraqis than your 25 year old college grad is staying at your house rent free until he gets his feet on the ground. You don't like it, and you may love him, but you sure wish he would get the hell out. Moreover, you are enabling his lousy behavior by propping him up in a co-dependent way.

Regardless, I would have hoped that after nearly six years of experience running (or more aptly ruining) a war, that George W. Bush would have something more concrete to say than "we'll see how it goes."

The "Foolishness" of George Bush is that he comes at governance with the approach of an elementary school child - as if he's got a lot more to learn, but just doesn't quite get it. Too bad, because with Nine Eleven and the ensuing disasters (Iraq, Git mo, etc...) we really needed some adult style leadership, not the dualistic ("your either with us or against us") approach of a juvenile.

Minimally, the W, Rove and Co, by proof of their actions, required much more adult supervision. Unfortunately, the republican controlled congress back in 2001 was entirely too eager to follow the swagger, accepting leadership by faith over fact, and abdicated their ability to provide such oversight.

And, I've said this before, the proof is in the pudding. We now have the economy and geopolitical situation the GOP had wished for. I'm not finding it all too palatable. Are you?

It's Summer: Where's Our Lemonade?

I love America. It's one country where, if you buckle down and get to work, you can actually make something of yourself. Indeed, there is a long history of the folks migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families. There is also a long history of, using ingenuity, Americans turn lemons into lemonade - meaning of course, turning a negative into a positive.

I was out on my run this morning - first one in a long while as I have been solo parenting for a full week. As usual, I got to thinking. I know, you "hate it when he does that."

Is it me, or, aside from the mess that was Vietnam, is George W. Bush the only President who has taken lemons and went actively out to seek and make nothing but more lemons? That is, most certainly, Nine Eleven was a negative situation. It could have been turned into a positive (and for a moment in time, it seemed like it might), but instead, Bush and his ilk turned it into negative (Iraq) after negative (Guantanamo, etc...).

The morass that we are left with after nearly 8 years of Bush feels more like a steaming pile of pig shit than anything else (without the methane capture to turn it into fuel). Where's the positive? Can any one help me out and find something positive to say about the W, Rove and Co?

A Couple of Reminders for Gitmo and George W. Bush Fans

It's good to dust off the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution every so often.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that Governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Written over two hundred years ago, but still salient today.

Let's remind ourselves what the Constitution says about Habeas corpus:

[T]he Constitution says (I.9): "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." That sounds pretty definitive: the Military Commissions Act contained no finding that the United States has been invaded, or is in the midst of a rebellion, nor is there any evidence that either condition obtains.... [H]ere are two questions the Court needs to answer: who has habeas rights? And where do they extend? The court's answer to the first question (who?) is, basically: everyone has them. (Meaning: if you are detained by the US government, in circumstances in which habeas rights would normally obtain, your lack of citizenship is no obstacle.)

As witnessed with Gitmo, the numerous signing statements, it's obvious George Bush has been playing fast and loose with the Constitution, hasn't he? Time to reign in the bugger, I say.

McSame?

Any doubt that McCain is more of the same?

More Proof George Bush and His Pals Have Screwed the Pooch With Regard To The "War On Terror."

I've said this a long time ago, but it seems like we may be closer to it as of today. Specifically, we may actually have to let some dangerous folks go from Gitmo because the W, Rove and Co. has violated the rights of these people in a very egregious way.

I hate to further go down this prediction road, but we may only be a few more legal steps away from the Gitmo detainees filing a class action suit against the USA and we will lose that one; in the end, owning them 6+ years of their lives back, plus damages - which in the end could end up financing more terrorism. Sadly.

When you violate rights, you then abdicate the legitimate process. And because you transgress beyond the reasonable bounds of human rights, you violate the very foundation of our beloved country. And for that, we have the Republicans to thank.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

The unraveling will be a long slow process. But think about it, if the W, Rove and go was on solid legal standing, they would not have been placed (moreover placed us) in such a precarious situation.

We have a responsiblity to hold the Administration that decided to marry Iraq and place it on the social welfare roles (sacrificing American social welfare in the process) in perpetuity. I really think the only real solution that could serve to redeem us here is if Bush and his cronies were moved to Iraq, by fiat, by the next President and have them work toward fixing the mess they gave us.

There is no shame in admitting we were duped into it. The shame rests in our incapacity to follow through and haul those responsible for dragging us into this quagmire to justice.




There's a reason why these folks made this above documentary:



Any one reading the same propaganda script for Iran as was shoveled down our throats for Iraq? Any one buying it?


P.S. psstt...does any one care where George Bush is today?

An American president is in Europe and nobody cares. That’s a moment.

When Republican Voters Get The Whitehouse They Dream of, We All Have To Live With The Consequences

Turns out, Republican Faithful should have headed the old adage: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

Indeed, with the new book promulgated by Scotty McMessage McClellan, we learn that leadership by faith over facts doesn't work. From the Republican "victories" at the polling stations and from our "Activist" Supreme Court in Y2K we got this:

Team Dubya got caught up in a "permanent campaign," a nonstop propaganda war whose weapons were "the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth and spin," and whose goal was to stage-manage the media narrative and thus public opinion.

Indeed, all governments try to control the message, but installation of blinders on the media and the American People has lead us somewhere, that's for certain. They have led us to a place where belief is a surrogate for fact, and faith is more important that truth or proof:

Sure, sure, truth is the first casualty of war, and politics is just war with a smile and a starched collar. But the burgeoning genre of Bush administration tell-alls, of which McClellan's is only the latest, paints a portrait of a White House utterly unconcerned with facts yet fervently attentive to public opinion polls. It is a White House whose solution to every unhappy turn of events -- the Iraqi insurgency, Hurricane Katrina, a moribund economy -- is to treat it not as a real-world problem requiring a real-world solution but as a glitch in the Matrix, "a perception problem" to be handled with the Message of the Day and the Theme of the Week.

The deeper story here is the shift from the Enlightenment worldview, whose commitment to reasoned debate and empirical truth used to be the cornerstone of our little experiment in democracy, to the faith-based worldview of fundamentalism -- not just the fundamentalism of the religious right but fundamentalisms of every sort. The Iraq war came about, in large part, through a harmonic convergence of personal passions, political agendas and ideological crusades, all faith-based rather than fact-driven. Bush, McClellan tells us, is a man who "convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment" and who "to this day ... seems unbothered by the disconnect between the chief rationale for war and the driving motivation behind it, and unconcerned about how the case was packaged."

And there are dire consequences for this means of leadership. Indeed, we are witnessing the economy the GOP gave us.

The economy got a triple dose of bad news on Friday, prompting even optimistic forecasters to conclude that a deeper downturn is unavoidable.

The nation's jobless rate posted its biggest single-month jump since 1986 in May, rising 0.5 percentage points to 5.5 percent, the Labor Department reported. At the same time, the price of crude oil catapulted to a new record, raising the threat that economic weakness and unemployment could worsen in the months ahead.

The news unnerved investors, prompting a broad sell-off on Wall Street. The Dow Jones industrial average and other major market indexes tumbled 3 percent.

Friday's developments put in relief the severity of the woes afflicting an economy hammered by a housing crash, tight credit and soaring energy costs.

Is it good for you? Who shall we point the enormous wagging middle finger of blame at here? The W, Rove and Co. has been so busy deflecting blame and confounding the truth with obfuscation, they have become entirely untrustworthy. Indeed, as they ratchet themselves further into lame duck status, Bush, Cheney and pals couldn't wrangle themselves out of the stain of the reality they created.

Indeed, we even witness the wrongheaded leadership (faith over fact) style unfold before us as they proclaim to protect us and see them add another recruiting tool to the terrorists - Martyrdom for Gitmo detainees. They are asking for it, and by god, they will be given the gift if George Bush and Dick Cheney get their wish:

Thursday's arraignment before a military tribunal of five Al Qaeda members accused of planning and assisting the 9/11 terrorist atrocities seemed custom-made to assist the loathsome defendants in achieving exactly what they desire -- an aura of martyrdom...

...when it comes to the handling of these cases, the Bush administration's willful overreaching, contempt for fundamental American values and defiance of basic American notions of due process have set the stage for travesty and further tragedy.

So, as we approach 5 bucks or more a gallon as we march on to November (which it may well be 10 bucks a gallon at that point, which may be well and good to improve our habits revolving around driving and be better for the environment as we reduce our use), whom should we vote for? McSame, or change?

More of the McSame

You Thought Bush has/had a problem with the hypocrisy department? Have a look at this:

Beijing - A Good Place for Outdoor Olympics?

Aren't you glad you are not an Olympic Caliber athlete going for the gold in this atmosphere? As a recovering track athlete myself, I think I would have to cancel my run if it was like this on race day.

I don't know who got paid off so that Beijing could host the Olympics this year, but even despite the human rights violations, the Tibet concern, even just the pollution concerns would be cause enough to not hold them there.

Found this picture on a tip from a friend over at this location.

Your Daily Dose of Irony

Here's something interesting that happened while you were at work today. The President attended the ground breaking ceremonies for the new US Institute of Peace:

We're transforming the United States military so we can deliver justice to the terrorists in a more effective way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main mission of the military is to rain death across a specific target. Of course, that's one way to wage peace. Has it worked in Iraq?

In an unrelated story, here's a second dose of irony that is yet another tip that the TSA is just a bureaucratic smoke screen that lead us to "bigger" not "smaller" government contrary to one of the GOP commandments.

Our view is that it is entirely illogical to tell a pilot he is not stable enough to carry a weapon in the form of a gun when at the same time, he has access to the weapon we are all most in fear of after 9/11 — a plane loaded with thousands of pounds of jet fuel.

Is There No Hear There?

I sit here
To listen there
To hear
If there
Is no
There here

But I cannot
Hear beyond
There to here
To discern
If there
Indeed Is
No there there