Amblin' Towards Armageddon

Sowell Proves Yet Again that He is Either a Dishonest Man or Incapable of Understanding Human Nature.

2012-07-11T16:48:00.000-04:00

Today, Thomas Sowell posted to RealClearPolitics an article called the "Invincible Lie."http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/07/11/the_invincible_lie_114757.html In it, he makes a number of swipes at the Obama administration and liberals - or anyone he considers a liberal, which is most everyone outside his small circle of RWNJs - though he does make a valid point that wealth is not the same as income. He, of course, loses any credibility for making this point when he implies that people earning over $250,000 a year are somehow simply like the great mass of middle class Americans. That is simply not true. $250,000 a year puts you in the top 2% of wealth and wage earners in this country. Not the top 2% of wage earners, but the top 2% of the wealthy. So Sowell, who is complaining about the so-called "lie" of taxing this group because they are wealthy, in effect lies about it to make his point.

But it doesn't stop there: He then goes on to state the the really big lie "is that those who oppose raising taxes on higher incomes simply want people with higher incomes to have more money, in hopes that some of their prosperity will "trickle down" to the rest of the people."

He goes so far as to state that he has called for anyone - ANYONE, mind you - to name one economist outside of a lunatic asylum that has made this statement. His argument being that since no economist has ever come out and called it that that must not be what is happening or its intent, ignoring the elephant in the room that all of the GOP Congress argue just that i.e. that if "job creators" can just hold onto more of their money, they will finally create jobs. If you're looking for an Invincible Lie, now there's one you can hang your hat on.

But what really finally throws this piece of idiotic excrement into the crapper is his final argument that people will avoid taxes when taxes are higher and will pay them when they are lower and do so without fuss or complaint. Just look at Mitt Romney: he only used his off-shore accounts when taxes were high.

Oh, wait...

And that's where Sowell really starts making stuff up. Not only does he use Romney as his example that the wealthy will look for tax havens when taxes are high, but it all really depends on the circumstances, don't you know. There's no reason to be a tax cheat when taxes are low. Right?

Except, of course, that taxes have been low, and Romney still did it. Now why would he do that if there's no reason to?

Because Romney behaved as human beings are wont to behave, and it appears Sowell has no idea how human beings behave. At some point, that lower tax rate becomes the norm. It's what its always been - at least to the person now looking at it - and everyone hates paying taxes, no matter how low the rate. And when it becomes the norm, those who are apt to try to avoid paying taxes will do so because TO THEM their taxes are too high. The rate doesn't matter.

If you don't believe this, go talk to a banker who complains about the Capital Gains rate being 15%, the lowest its ever been, because he thinks it should be zero. He believes he shouldn't be taxed for doing absolutely nothing but stealing other people's money.

So, to sum, up Thomas Sowell has either no idea how the world works or he simply believes the rest of us are too stupid to know how the world works. Either way, the real Invincible Lie is that Sowell has anything of import to say. Given how frequently and massively wrong he tends to be, he is a better bell-weather for what not to think since he does so very little of it.

How Many Pedophiles can you fit on the Head of the Catholic Church

2012-06-27T14:13:00.000-04:00

William Lynch, a 44 year old man who live in San Francisco, is accused of felony assault and elder abuse for beating his alleged abuser may receive up to 4 years in jail, while his alleged abuser Father Jerold Linder lives out his days in a nice Catholic Jesuit retirement home. Even the prosecution in this case believes that Father Linder was an abuser, yet because of the statute of limitations, Father Linder will never face a day in court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/william-lynch-alleged-abuse-victim-trial-beating-priest/story?id=16610797#.T-tD2Mhv-So

Justice would not be served, unless one were willing to take it into their own hands, like William Lynch did.

The same church that protects Linder demands that rape victims who get pregnant carry those babies to term and raise them. That same church condemns gay men and women but coddles the priests who prey upon children. They fight the use of contraception and protect those who abuse their position of trust.

But, of course, it's not the priest's fault, after all. The victims were just asking for it, weren't they. While the flock feel sympathy and a modicum of outrage, they continue to pour into their institution of worship and continue to fund the Church which to it's very pinnacle has not only harbored but tried to protect these pedophile priests.

And it doesn't stop just with the Catholic Church. Rape victims shouldn't be allowed to get abortions because that is immoral, and everyone knows the rape victim must have been asking for it. Must have been asking for it by the way they dress, the way they walk, or even just how they look at you. It must be the victim's fault, having led their abuser on simply by being there.

There are bigger issue as well. Outraged conservatives who decry affairs by John Edwards and Bill Clinton, while Senator David Vitter procures prostitutes to dress him in diapers and manages to get re-elected on a family values platform.

Or attacks on Sandra Fluke for wanting insurance to cover birth control when those same companies cover Viagra, a product Rush Limbaugh took along to the Dominican Republic. What possible use did he have for it there, one wonders.

We glorify the prurient, dressing under-age girls in clothes meant to sexualize them, and then hold them responsible when they get attacked. We punish women for being women, children for being children, and feign massive outrage when our false puritanism is breached by reality. We hate sex, or pretend we do, all the while demanding more of it.

There is something deeply wrong with our country when pedophile priests get to retire and live out their days taken care of while their victims spend their lives battling the rage and the loathing they feel for themselves through no fault of their own. There is something deeply wrong with our country when the leaders and mouthpieces for half the nation can hypocritically call for abstinence only education and the punishment of the victim while all the while they indulge in their basest behavior.

THE FOUNDERS WERE WRONG....AND RIGHT.

2010-10-25T17:44:00.004-04:00

The title of this post is meant to be provacative. But it is also true. Let's start with a simple idea and one really that cannot be legitimately disputed: Anyone who tells you they know what "The Founding Fathers" were thinking and that they have some inside track as to what they believed is lying. Plain and simple.

Anyone with the least bit of common sense can see that. There is just no way that anyone can say that they know clearly and unequivically what "The Founding Fathers" thought or wanted, because anyone with the least bit of common sense would notice that there is just no such thing as a monolithic group called "The Founding Fathers." So when you ascribe to "The Founding Fathers" this singular vision for what the United States was and should be, you are just lying out your ass because that never existed.

This is particularly troublesome for conservatives who seem to believe that they have some direct spiritual tie to "The Founding Fathers" and that they know exactly what TFFs wanted, just like they know exactly what God wants and everyone else is simply wrong. But, point out to them that the statement they cherry-picked from, say, Thomas Jefferson is not consistent with other statements Jefferson may have made, and they will state that 1) Jefferson never said that, 2) if he did he didn't mean it, and 3) you're nothing but a Nazi for pointing out that Jefferson contradicted himself.

Recently, for instance, that renowned Constitutional scholar Christine O'Donnell went to absurd lengths trying to deny separation of church and state. Leaving aside her hapless reasoning that it is not a tenet of The Constitution because the phrase as written is not directly written there, the Conservative Never Ever Right came to her defense arguing that she was not claiming that The Establishment Clause - the very first line of the First Amendment - was not there (she did, actually), but that her interpretation of The Constitution was an originalist one, and that those damn Liberals thought so little of TFFs that they would argue that 200 years worth of legal precedence had greater meaning than TFFs.

Now, we're talking Christine O'Donnell here, and let's face it, she has no idea what an originalist interpretation of The Constitution is. But let us discuss the idea of an originalist interpretation - just what does that mean exactly? That we should accept The Constitution on its face as complete and immutable? I doubt you will find many minorities who will willingly give up their right to vote so that we can have that originalist interpretation reinstated, conservative or otherwise. Yes, I know, that was granted by amendment and the only way to change the law of the land should be by amendment only - or so say conservatives, but only when it is not them doing the changing of the law.

For instance, conservatives never bring up the fact that The Constitution of the US was and is a compromise document, the most egregious example of that being the 3/5ths Compromise. Are we to ignore that? James Madison - The Father of The Constitution - placed within The Constitution a compromise which made a black man worth 3/5s of a white one. But, I hear conservatives shouting, he didn't mean it! We fixed it later through amendment! We gave blacks the right to vote through amendment! True, eventually The Constitution included the right to vote for all men and women, but the change didn't come because the Original Constitution allowed for it. It came because of the struggle and sacrifice of individuals willing to fight for it. An originalist interpretation of The Constitution would have kept out voting for all minorities forever.

And on the other side of the coin, we have Coroprate Personhood. The same conservatives who argue that we should follow their originalist interpretation of The Constitution - those very same folks who shout about how those damn Liberals are making up the law as they go - they will defend to the death this concept of corporate personhood - that somehow a corporation has the same rights as an individual, but with none of the responsibilities of the individual. This idea of Coroprate Personhood which came into being because a law clerk added a word which shouldn't have been added to a decision - THIS! Conservatives will defend as right and proper!

Madison - The Father of The Constitution - feared Democracy. Jefferson believed in a small agrarian society. Both men were dead set against having a standing army. Patrick Henry was supposedly a money-grubbing little worm of a man who barely passed law exams. Washington was a wealthy land-owner who wanted more than anything to keep his patrician's place. Thomas Paine and Aaron Burr wanted all able-bodied free men and women to be able to vote. There is no originalist interpretation of The Constitution. TFFs didn't know exactly what they wanted when it was written. Stating that it should remain static because you believe you know what they thought and what they wanted and that you are somehow right while everyone else is wrong is just the most appalling act of hubris.

ROSS DOUTHAT APOLOGIZES FOR TEA BAGGERS

2010-10-18T20:20:00.004-04:00

Ross Douthat, one of the two conservative columnists that write regularly for the New York Times - interesting The Times has two conservatives while it seems that papers like the Washington Times have no Liberal columnists, but that's another article - apologized, as in the ancient Greek use of the word, for The Tea Party in a column he wrote on October 17th. He began his column with a supposed survey by a former CATO Institute intern that shows that only 5% of the signs she saw were about race or religion, and only 1% about the President's birth certificate. Considering the fact that our surveyor surveyed only 250 signs at a Tea Party Rally on the Washington Mall, one has to wonder from the beginning just how serious a survey we are talking about here. Nor do we have any survey at all as to what those not carrying signs thought. But to Douthat, this is evidence that Tea Baggers aren't racists and bigots, because, really, only 5% of their signs out of 250 made those kinds of statements and so Liberals are just being mean to these poor Tea Baggers. So Douthat sets up his little strawman and knocks it down handily.

But let's take his other points one at a time - The Tea Party isn't really driving the Republican Party over the political cliff. Douthat's argument here is that there are just so many great Tea Party candidates who aren't Christine O'Donnell and Carl Paladino. Why, you have such stalwart examples of conservative rectitude as Marco Rubio - who has no problem using the corporate credit card to pay his personal bills - Ken Buck - who believes if you are a woman who was raped, it was probably your fault and you should be forced to live with the consequences, and Pat Toomey - who admittedly isn't as extreme as the other two, he just wishes to do away with most social programs and believes shipping jobs overseas is really a very good idea. So Douthat's reasonable Tea Baggers are only reasonable in regards to their completely insane counterparts.

The Tea Partiers are not puppets of the Sinister Rich - Really? Let's think about this for a minute. Because the movement began as a possible grassroots movement, it cannot possibly be a puppet now? He's right about the Koch brothers funding every single conservative movement since the dawn of time, but just because they haven't been as effective up til now doesn't change the fact that they finally hit on a winning formula. Keep throwing shit against the wall long enough, sooner or later some of it is going to stick. Douthat's defense is that they started out as a grassroots movement even though every single Tea Bagger candidate is a Republican. Are we to believe that only Republicans care about the deficit? Because if he does expect that, how does he explain that the largest defeicits have been created by Republicans? Nor does he explain Dick Armey or the Koch brothers and the money they are pouring into the Tea Bagger movement. Again, we are simply to take his word.

The Tea Parties are not just the John Birch Society all over again - This is a throwback to the first point Douthat makes: that because there just aren't enough signs, they can't be racist, bigoted bastards. Of course, he does nothing to try to explain the hatred against muslims and the hatred against the Islamic Community Center in New York. Of course this doesn't come from people looking for a scapegoat just like the Red Scare of the '50's. No, Tea Baggers would never do such a thing. Why, they're saints and would never behave in any way that is opposite to The Constitution of the United States. Douthat seems to forget the First Amendment.

And, finally, The Tea Party are not hypocrites because there are two candidates who have statements that could be construed as possibly, actually presenting their true position. But that's the point, isn't it? There are 138 Tea Bagger candidates - every single one of them is running as a Republican. Every single one of them - to get elected - have disavowed their statesments concerning privatization of Social Security and the dissolution of Medicare. The great mass of the Tea Baggers - the rank and file, if you will - may believe that their candidates will not privatize Social Secuirty and dissolve Medicare, but that is the position all of their candidates have expressed at one time or another. And while they have disavowed their past statements, none of them have unequivically stated that they will not do what they have professed in the past.

Some may believe Douthat has admirably defended the Tea Baggers, but, really, all he has done is shown that he's somewhat adept at twisting arguments so he can defend the position that he wants to defend and not the actualy facts. Just like most Tea Baggers.

GO GALT ALREADY!

2010-10-15T23:37:00.005-04:00

Recently, Greg Manikow, an economist in the Bush Adminsitration, wrote an editorial stating that if the Bush Tax Cuts for the top 1% were to expire, he would not work as hard as he presently does since any income above $250,000 would be taxed a total of 4% more than it is presently taxed. This argument has been around for awhile now: Bill O'Reilly made it a few years ago; there was a brief movement of individuals who all promised to go Galt over this very issue. All I can say is: Go Galt, already, and leave the rest of us alone, for Christ's sake!

Honestly, how many of these people are actually that important that we cannot live without them? Is Greg Manikow such a great economist that there is no one to replace him? How about Bill O'Reilly? Given that O'Reilly is being eclipsed by the Insane Clown Posse that is Glenn Beck, who is going to miss him? None of these people are irreplaceable? Give me a break.

The one overriding principle of any place of work is that no one is irreplaceable. No one. Assume for a moment that Manikow stops taking every speaking assignment offered. Will there be no one to take that speaking assignment? Hardly. Or O'Reilly stops writing his books. Given the lack of thought or empathy that goes into his turgid prose, most of us would be happy if he stopped writing them altogether. There is nothing these two call their work that is of such a singular creation that we could not live without it. Neither Manikow nor O'Reilly is that unique a talent.

This, by the way, is the problem with Atlas Shrugged in the first place. It presupposes that there are some individuals that are just so unique that the world cannot live without them. Now, assuming this is so, conservatives have a problem; basically, one of contradiction. If there are individuals so unique that we cannot do without them, then not everyone can be one of these individuals. If, on the other hand, as conservatives constantly harp, everyone can do it, then these individuals do not exist.

The reality is is that overall, there are very few people the world cannot do without. In almost every instance of scientific discovery, it appears there were individuals on the same track as those who are given credit for their scientific discoveries. So under the proper circumstances, scientific, social, communal progress would continue, perhaps a bit differently, but it would continue.

So if Bill O'Reilly or Greg Manikow, or Pam Geller (who produces even less than these other two do) were to stop working altogether, nothing untoward would happen. The US would continue on it's way; there would still be bad economic policy put forth by some other RWNJ; there would still be stupid commentary on Faux News; and there would still be ignorant RWNJ blogs.

TEA BAG AMERICA

2010-09-29T18:22:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, I wrote a blog post titled “What If the Tea Baggers Win?” In that post I discussed what the optimistic scenarios were concerning a Tea Bag victory come November, with the Tea Baggers basically either at odds with their traditional conservative leadership or at odds with the rest of Congress. Either way, a victory – albeit a minor one – for common sense.

But there was a pessimistic scenario as well. What would the US look like were the Tea Baggers to win and to be able to effectively implement their policies? What kind of America would that be? Herewith, I present to you Tea Bag Utopia.

In the Tea Bag version of the US, education will be mostly religious, private education affordable only by the very few wealthy people left. Science will be relegated to a minor position within the “education” community and teachers will be required to adhere to strict standards of conservative comportment which will ignore facts, will treat religious belief as the only truth, and will punish those who choose to try to think freely. Book burning and banning will be commonplace. Believing other than the Tea Bag Orthodoxy will kake you an enemey of the State. (See positions of the Texas Board of Education; Christine O’Donnell; Sarah Palin; Daniel Webster; Rand Paul)

Pre-marital sex will be a crime. Masturbation will be a criminal act, punishable by stoning. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies will sky-rocket. Child- abuse will be protected by law, and the abused will be considered the criminal. Incest and rape will be considered no more than minor felonies, while the victims of incest and rape will be ostracized, ridiculed, and demonized. The sins of the criminal shall be passed onto the victim. (See the position of Ron Johnston; Sharon Angle; Christine O’Donnell; Sarah Palin; Daniel Webster; Rand Paul).

Being gay will be a criminal act. Being an adulterer will be a criminal act, unless you are one of the elite few. Being a woman with a job will be a criminal act; again, unless you are one of the elite few. Women will be subservient to their husbands; will be unable to divorce; and forced to remain in abusive relationships. (See the position of Daniel Webster; Newt Gingrich).

If you are a person of African, Caribbean or Latin descent, you will be forced back into slavery if you’re black, because as everyone knows, slavery was good for Blacks, or deported for being Latino. Nor will you be allowed to go to any store or restaurant you wish to go to, and racism will be allowed to be institutionalized once again. (See position of Trent Franks; Carl Palidino; Rand Paul; John McCain; Michelle Bachman; Sharon Angle; Joe Arpiao; Jan Brewer; the list continues).

Should you be a senior citizen, expect to have no Social Security and no Medicare. These programs will be phased out almost immediately upon the ascension of the Tea Baggers. Poverty amongst seniors will grow to epidemic proportions. (See Position of Sharon Angle; Christine O’Donnell; Sarah Palin; Rand Paul; Newt Gingrich; Ron Johnston; Paul Ryan; etc., etc.).

Poverty in America will explode, as the middle class get squeezed to the breaking point, paying for more and more tax cuts for the wealthy, who will create fewer and fewer jobs in America – since they do not presently create jobs anyway – until the majority of “good” jobs have been outsourced to cheap labor in other parts of the world.. The wealthy will have greater and greater influence on the public dialogue, their pets in the Tea Party Movement doing the bidding of a minority of those considered wealthy. (See WSJ Poll: 2/3 of those making over $250,000 believe taxes on wealthy need to rise).

Healthcare coverage will be non-existent. Insurance companies will be able to drop you from your coverage whenever and however they feel like. Every illness will be considered a pre-existing condition. Every doctor’s visit will be just another opportunity to avoid paying for your coverage. If you are pregnant, do not expect insurance to have to cover pre-natal or post-natal care. If you have a child with a learning disability, do not expect insurance to help with the costs involved in taking care of that child. If you have HIV, do not expect insurance to cover cost of drugs which can prolong your life. Do, however, expect that the Government will come knocking at your door to find out just what sex crime they believe you have committed. (See position of Sharon Angle; Christine O’Donnell; Rand Paul).

The Deficit will continue to spiral out of control, fueled by the Wars being fought in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea. As ¾ of the discretionary budget of the United States is already made up of paying for some form of defense spending and the Tea Baggers have stated quite clearly that they intend to actually grow the defense budget, this goes without saying. Cutting out every program presently found in our Government except Defense spending will not dent the Deficit. Growing the Defense Budget will simply continue to raise the Deficit. (See position of Sarah Palin; Rand Paul; Daniel Webster; Ron Johnston).

Religious intolerance will continue to grow. The Government of the United States will become a Theocracy. The Old Testament of the Bible will be the only law unto the land, with those not adhering to its teachings being ostracized and attacked for their heretical beliefs. Except, of course, if you can pay your way out. State-supported religion will be introduced and enforced much like the State-supported religion in Saudi Arabia, with religious police coming into your bedroom, spying in your windows, demanding access to your private life. The security apparatus of the State will continue to grow, as the security apparatus of the State will be one of the State’s few remaining functions. Any deviation from Tea Bag Orthodoxy will make you an Enemy of the State. (See position of John McCain; Sarah Palin; Christine O’Donnell; Ron Johnston; Daniel Webster).

Given that these are the professed positions of the so-called leaders of the Tea Bagger Movement, one needs to ask just what in this scenario appeals to people? These positions have all been put forward by the people mentioned above. Given all this, are we to believe that the people going to these rallies truly understand what they are calling for? Because if we do believe that, our country as we know it – a country that purports to believe in freedom and justice – will be neither free nor just.

What Happens If Tea Baggers Win?

2010-09-28T17:34:00.003-04:00

Imagine if you will that the House leader calls a vote for what is considered an important piece of legislation by the party. But instead of having a clear majority, the leader finds there is a fight going on with a large and vocal minority not only holding up the bill but in some instnaces choosing to side with the minority party against it. Is this Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, you may wonder, given how badly Democrats have done at behaving like Democrats and voting for the poor, the working and the middle classes? No, it's John Boehner - or possibly Eric Cantor - vs. the Tea Baggers.

The Tea Baggers - I call them that since they self-identified as such - consider themselves the only ones who know the true meaning of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, even though most of them have never bothered to read either document. They, like their GO(B)P brethren, hate Government and anything to do with Government, so, naturally, they believe they should be the ones running the very institutions they hate. They hate Social Security, even though many Tea Baggers are on Social Security; they hate any kind of Govenrment funded Healthcare, unless it's their Medicare, they hate any and all entitlement programs, unless they are the programs which pave their streets and essentially make their lives easier. As an example, I give you Sharon Angle, who has no problem complaining about public healthcare while, it turns out in one of many fits of irony, she avails herself of it. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/28/angle-government-health-care/

And if that's not enough, Tea Baggers demand to have access to your bedroom. Don't have sex, don't be gay, go to the one true church (whatever the hell that means), and don't believe you can be who and what you are if you happen to be different from their belief as to who or what you should be.

Nor should you try at all to become educated. Education is for people who think, and being a Tea Bagger, that leaves most of them out. Science and Math are Liberal conspiracies against God and American Exceptionalism. The earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is just a theory, and Global Climate Change is just another form of taxation. So believeth the stupid. See Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell.

So back to our House scenario: either way, the GOBP loses. I'm sure the Party of No believes that once they get elected the Tea Baggers will fall into line. Perhaps, perhaps not. If they do, they will have very short political careers, as the likelihood that the Tea Baggers who turned out for these candidates turning out for them again will be close to nil. If they don't, then they will achieve none of their goals, as the likelihood that all of the GOBP will go insane, while greater than the first scenario, is hopefully also nil.

These are the optimistic outcomes should the Tea Baggers win come November. I give these outcomes a 50 - 50 chance. The pessimistic outcome is one no sane person should have to contemplate. Imagine a US run by Tea Baggers - debt spiraling out of control, social services non-existent, social protections non-existent, wars everywhere, religion mandated in the classroom, anyone who is different being hounded. The Tea Baggers speak about being for positive change, yet nothing they want is positive.

If we wish to move forward in this country, we must realize now that though they are our fellow citizens, they believe more in their ideology than they do in the concept of citizenship. They do not see any common cause. And that, by itself, should frighten anyone who has even half a brain in their head.

TEA BAG ECONOMICS

2010-09-17T17:20:00.002-04:00

I am not an economist, nor do I pretend to be one. In point of fact, I don't consider myself to be particularly good at math or economics. Given that, I expect I shall be roundly attacked after writing this by people who consider themselves to be much better at economics than myself yet who will be exceptionally and unequivacally wrong in just about their entire analysis.

How can I say that, given that I have made it clear I am not an economist? Because I intend to discuss Tea Bag Economics - the economic theory which plainly states that you can continue to cut taxes without cutting the spending of any of your - meaning Tea Party - sacred programs. Let's start with the basics.

The Tea Party claims to be against deficit spending and the deficit in general. They demand that government cut spending. Yet when asked what exactly they will cut, they mention programs which have marginal impact on spending. For instance, foreign assistance. A great deal is made about how much of our tax dollars are being spent overseas for foreign assistance, yet if you look at the figures, foreign assistance doesn't even register. It barely makes any of the graphs. Or let's talk about the Department of Health and Human Services - one Department Tea Baggers like to kick around. The Budget for this Department is $78.7 Billion. That's a decrease of 1.7%. Now, no one is saying that $78.7 Billion is not a great deal of money. But here's the thing - the Defense Department Budget is nearly 10 times that amount. In fact, the Defense Department Budget is 68% of all discretionary Federal spending - it is the major beneficiary of income tax dollars. Not Social Security, not Medicare or Medicaid. Those programs are paid for by separate taxes, not income taxes (although the argument will be that all taxes are income taxes - and in a way that is correct, but misleading).

So, when you break it all down, you have the majority of income taxes - as we generally regard them - going to Defense spending. Now, the obvious question is, will Tea Baggers support cutting the Defense budget? To hear them talk, the answer is no. So just how serious are they about deficit reduction?

Not very, as it happens, as they will also not support paying for any of this spending. How else can you explain their constant admonishments against income taxes? Assuming that they wish to have the smallest government possible and we do away with every single department and program within the Federal Government except the bare minimum, even in that Tea Bagger paradise, the present rate of income taxes would not reduce the deficit nor in fact provide the revenue necessary to continue present trends in defense spending, interest on the national debt and simply running a bare-bones government. The math does not work.

And with the Tea Baggers calling for even less in tax rates and demanding that revenue be even lower, there is no intellectually honest way to reduce the deficit, to pay off our debt. Doing away with every program in the Federal Government except debt repayment and Defense will still not bring us out of deficit as the money coming in is less than the money going out. And Tea Baggers aren't honest enough to admit that lowering taxes will in no way improve that equation.

So when Jim DeMint or Rand Paul or Christine O'Donnell or Sarah Palin tell you that maintaining tax cuts for the rich will not affect the deficit and they have a plan to reduce the deficit without raising taxes, they are simply lying. They care more about their ideological dislike of taxes than they do about the health of the nation.

THE NATIONAL REVIEW: CHAMPION OF TREASON

2007-12-04T17:23:00.000-05:00

I have just realized why I ignore reading the National Review: Recent stories about all those lying Arabs, how Henry Hyde was just a wonderful man, how the NIE is obviously wrong because it does not agree with their already quite biased beliefs. You just can't read this Shit without getting a case of hives. This is not journalism or even legitimate commentary or opposition; The National Review has forsaken any intellectual honesty simply to commit treason against the United States of America and The Constitution of the United States of America.

Do you think that's harsh? Really? Then why doesn't The National Review, which had no problem with Bill Bennett calling the NY Times treasonous for writing about black sites outside the US a year after they found out about it not demand that Scooter Libby, Richard Armitage, Dick Cheney, and Robert Novack be tried for treason?

Or perhaps they can explain how it's perfectly all right to demand Clinton's impeachment for getting a blow-job, but wouldn't think of calling for Bush's impeachment for lying us into a War which was illegal in the first place and trying to lie us into a second war without reason or provocation, their smoking gun nothing more than their fever dreams of imperialism? I especially like the accolades to Henry Hyde, a man who had to resign because he was getting his dick waxed outside of his marriage at the same time he was playing high hypocritical priest of morality about Clinton. Right the fuck up there with Newt Gingrich.

And let us not forget their warmongering in Lebanon. They were quite willing to pile on Baeuchamp when he supposedly made up stories; but their warblogger buddy in The Tank; he was just misinformed by those "lying Arabs."

It's quite clear that The National Review will say or do whatever it takes to get their position to be accepted as the only position to have. The National Review cares nothing about truth, facts, or reality. This is not a magazine which provides clear critical thought, whether right or left. It is one part of the propaganda arm of an organization trying to destroy The United States.

IS GOD CHRISTIAN?

2007-09-26T16:48:00.001-04:00

Or Muslim; or Jewish; or Buddhist; or any other Religion for that matter? It's a fundamental (pardon the pun) question, which seems to have only one answer: of course, he is. He is all of the above. If you believe in God.

Let me just start out by saying, I'm an agnostic. I have my doubts about God, and he/she/it has his/her/its doubts about me. Be that as it may, I can still ask the above question and come up with a reasonable and reasoned answer. And there's the rub, because if you are a Devout Christian, Muslim, Jew, whatever, it has nothing to do with a reasoned answer and everything to do with your faith being better than the other guy's faith. For instance, reason tells us that an omnipotent, omnipresent God created all things, which means he created all faiths and therefore God is part of all faiths. Simple, clear, concise. But bring that question and logic to a true believer, and they care nothing for it, because what it all comes down to is an unwavering faith which does not believe in either logic or using one's brain for anything other than keeping space between your ears.

For instance, abstinence. The Catholic Church states in its doctrines that one must be abstinent, even in marriage, unless your purpose in having intercourse is procreation. How many Catholics follow this doctrine. Yet these same Catholics have no problem condemning contraception and sexual education. Their faith overrides their logic. It even goes to extremes, where an African Bishop recently stated that he knew for a fact that condoms from Europe were being deliberately infected with the AIDS virus, and the only protection against AIDS was abstinence. How much of a conspiracy nut do you have to be to believe that European condom manufacturers are trying to kill you? If you don't believe this story, here's the link.

Or we can discuss Bill Donahue of the Catholic League. Admittedly, an easy target; why anyone believes Donahue is a valid representatvie of the Catholic Faith is beyond me. Yet even when he makes outrageous claims about Hollywood being run by secular jews who like pederasty, you hear nary a peep from mainstream Catholicism. Why is that, I wonder? Not really. What I'm sure I would be told is that we must tolerate even the intolerable. Except, of course, if you're gay. No; the truth is is that Donahue serves a very useful purpose: He gives voice to positions the Church believes in but thinks would mar it's alraedy tarnished image. He can be the voice of intolerance which the Church so desperately needs, without the Church actually having to admit to its hate.

The same can be said of Evangelicals: they just don't worry about how they look in other people's eyes, because,let's face it, you don't believe like they do, you're going to Hell anyway. Intolerance of others seems to be the common overriding theme of most religions. That and the fact that you are damned. Which explains Muslim extremists who see nothing wrong with suicide bombing, or Evangelical extremists who see nothing wrong with murdering Doctors and Nurses who perform procedures they do not agree with. Or even pharmicists who believe that their moral judgement overrides your rights.

It would take excessive amounts of time to list all the extreme and horrendous acts which are perpetrated in the name of a specific Religion, and I just don't have time to do that. Others have been working long and hard in that area. Suffice it to say that Religious extremism continues unabted and, in fact, seems to be gaining momentum. When Shia kill Sunni, Sunni kill Shia, Evangelicals create videogames where the main focus is to convert or kill so-called non-believers, where The Church denies contraception and abortion yet does nothing to eliviate the very problems which occur becasue of their approbation, where Jews kill Palestinians in their belief that they are the chosen people; what more can one say. I wonder, does God ask himself, Is this what I created? Is this what I intended? Why? I wonder if he has an answer?

MITCH McCONNELL AND JOHN BOEHNER ARE ASSHOLES!

2007-09-13T22:05:00.000-04:00

And it goes without saying that George W. Bush is an AssHole. But McConnell and Boehner proved the mettle of their assholity this very day when Boehner stated that the death of over 3 thousand US troops and the maiming of at least 30 thousand others was a "small price" to pay to keep us safe from an imaginary enemy who didn't attack us on 9-11. To say the least, that makes Boehner a major asshole. I wonder when he'll get around to apologizing to all the family members of the dead annd wounded. Or will this be just another case of IARIYAR?

Then you have Senator McConnell - a true Kentucky Gentleman (a term I use extremely loosely). On NPR today, on All Things Considered, Harry Reed was asked about General Petraus' report to Congress about Iraq. Reed spoke thoughtfully and without personal rancor about the situation in Iraq, about how it would be a bipartisan effort to change the situation, and how he hoped that both sides would find a middle ground.

It was then Mitch McConnell's turn. He was asked if there were any positions on which the Republicans could agree with the Democrats. Senator McConnel, being the Kentucky Gentleman he is, stated rather matter-of-factly that all he could see was that the Democrats were rushing to surrender as quickly as possible to the terrorists! I guess this is the high-minded civility the Republicans are always demanding that the Democrats practice! Just a lovely man!

But this is the Republican way, after all. All that's left for them is to politicize the War, to pretend that they are somehow manly men who will fight to the death, even though they are not the ones fighting. Nor are they the ones dying. It's fair to say that some of the Democrats may also in fact be politicizing the War, but the question becomes "Which is better - To politicize the War so that more US soldiers die, or to politicize the War so that more US soldiers come home alive?" I know which one I would choose. We know which one Mssrs. McConnell and Boehner have chosen.

BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME

2007-08-08T22:55:00.000-04:00

On numerous occassions lately, I have heard the Hardly Ever Right whine about how those who do not agree with them have Bush Derangement Syndrome. BDS they call it and declare that we (those who do not agree with them) must be somehow deranged and that this derangement is because of our hatred of George W. Bush. It is because of our hatred of Bush that we (those who do not agree with the Hardly Ever Right) decry the use of torture by our Government, the loss of our rights, the Republican obstructionism in Congress, the continuous scandals concerning these Republican lawmakers (and yes, there are Democratic lawmakers who also have committed crimes; its just that the Republicans seem to do it enmass and organized according to party) the War in Iraq, the continued ideological stupidity of the Hardly Ever Right when it comes to healthcare and nearly everything else;all of this is because of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Now, is it just me, or might it not be more reasonable to say that the Bush Derangement Syndrome that The Hardly Ever Right seems to be believe in is actually a syndrome that the Hardly Ever Right appears to suffer from (though I use the word suffer here just to point out their ailment. They do not, in fact, suffer. They are quite content to be unbelieveable ignorant.

How incredibly stupid do you have to be to argue that there really are no reasons for the majority of the population of the United States to be upset with not only The Administration but Congress, the Main Stream Media, and the completely corrupt Republican Party? Honestly; is there an arguement here? The Administration does not believe in the rule of law, the Republicans seem to care less than The Administration, as they care much more about ridiculous ideology than they do about doing what is in the best interest of the Country, and the MSM carries water for whoever is in power. Yet the so-called intellectuls of the Hardly Ever Right who complain about BDS cannot for the life of them see anything wrong. Obviously, if you are a member of this improbable fraternity (and unfortunately there are quite a few members), you do not believe in using your brain for anything other than keeping space between your ears.

As an example: Recently, a member of The National Review wrote about BDS and Scalia-Thomas Derangement Syndrome. Now, I cannot, in fact, make much arguement about Scalia and Thomas, though both are rather incompetent in my opinion (but I'm not a Law Scholar), but this particular member then goes on to complain about an arguement put forth in the NYT about Cheney and how Cheney believes in a Unitary Executive and somehow has been pushing for it since he became VP. The arguement by this particular member is that the author of this arguement makes some specious claims concerning Cheney and Cheney becoming VP and then pushing for the Unitary Executive. Now, here's the thing: Cheney, while he worked in the Nixon White House, believed quite strongly in a Unitary Executive. Whether he had some over-arching master plan is not the question. But given that he was put in charge of the Search Committee for the VP, are we supposed to be naive enough to believe that when he saw an opportunity to actualy implement what he believes, he did not take it? How stupid are we if that is what we actually believe? How dishonest are you when you put forth just such a premise?

WHEN THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT....

2007-07-11T16:16:00.000-04:00

The gents and ladies at the National Review, those hardy he-men an women of the Hardly-Ever Right, tell me that I'm overly worried about The Constitutional Crisis presently taking place. That there really is no crisis, what with the President commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, admitting he did something wrong, but it wasn't worth 30 months in jail (though if I remember correctly, they were all quite willing to have Bill Clinton impeached and thrown out of office for lying about a blow job, an offense for which he was never even tried; they're just not quite as worried about someone who was convicted on 2 counts of perjury and 2 counts of obstructing justice who may be lying about the underlying crime of treason). Nor should I worry about the US Attorney scandal because I've been told by the Administration that they had nothing to do with it and that's why they are invoking Executive Privilege. Why, everyone can understand the logic there: We never spoke to these people; so you can't speak to them either. Or maybe it's that we did speak to them, but it had nothing to do with anything, so why would you want to,or....never mind.

On the barely legal side of the equation, we have the Fourth Circuit(?) Court of Appeals saying that you can't use the courts to find out if the Administration broke the Law against you; you have to know they broke the Law against you before you can bring any kind of criminal complaint against them. While I understand the Court's reasoning, I wonder how anyone is supposed to find out if the Administration broke the Law agaisnt them when the group charged with finding that out is the group that broke the Law in the first place (See FBI and Illegal Wiretapping and Justice Department)?

We have as well the Supreme Court saying that if you have loads and loads of money, you can pretty much say whatever you want in a political campaign, but if you're a high school student, don't make any bad jokes because we'll slap you down (if you're Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and the ilk, you can call all your demands for the Deaths of other people bad jokes and the Hardly Ever Right will defend you forever against supposed censorship). And as to Clarence Thomas' concurrent opinion which argues that schools in fact have the obligation to instill a set of common values, it may behoove the individuals arguing that position, including Clarence Thomas, to remember that one of the common values we're supposed to instil is the First Amendment. A sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" is considerably less inflammatory than what "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" said about John Kerry during the last campaign, particularly since all of their allegations were outright lies.

But let us return to The National Review's arguement that The Cosntitution is not in fact in crisis; that this is just hyperbole. What we have is a Congress which just doesn't understand its place, they argue. Interesting assessment, but completely wrong. Congress comes first in The Constitution, not the President. The basic reason for the presidency is that it is easier to deal in foreign affairs with one individual than with 435. That is why the President can propose treaties, but those treaties need to be ratified by Congress (a position, I'm sure, The National Review and the Hardly-Ever Right find irksome). There is no, nor has there ever been, a Unitary President as the Hardly-Ever Right presently argues there is. What's more, their position is so shortsighted that were they to but look down the road a bit, they wouldn't want what they are demanding.

The Hardly-Ever Right's call for a strong, unitary executive is so myopic that it defies logic. Imagine if you will what happens when you have such a figure. The Hardly-Ever Right assumes that were a Democrat to be elected President, they would act with a greater sense of decorum and therefore there would be no problem as the Hardly-Ever Right would simply be the Bully they are and shout him or her down. The Hardly-Ever Right believes in ponies. But back to the topic at hand; if we imagine a smaller government limited only to military and policing and a Unitary President, what remains for that President to do? You need only look at what George W. Bush has done to see what you can expect more of, because let's face it, the next guy (or gal) just can't be as incompetent as this one.

IMPEACH THE BASTARDS!

2007-07-05T17:50:00.000-04:00

Yesterday was the Fourth of July: Independence Day! And for I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, it was a great day. For the rest of us, not so much.

If you happen to value your independence and freedom, this week may have seen the strongest statement by this Administration and its enablers that your freedom and independence are not considered worth one wit. George Bush, George the Third (an honorific which I gave him when I thought it was just a joke), made it plain that he really doesn't care much about the Law or The Constitution. It's quite simple really: The Law found Libby guilty, a jury of his peers. The judge sentenced Libby according to the guidelines set down by the Justice Department. And George the Third looked at the sentence, agreed the Law had indeed been broken, and said that that didn't matter, because he, George the Third, thought the sentence too harsh. So he gave Libby a free pass. George W. Bush basically said that the Law is what he says it is! That he is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal. George Bush has declared himself King. Or more accurately, Dictator.

Others have written far more eloquently about this than I have. Read Glenn Greenwald, read Atrios, read Digby, read anyone but the idiotic hypocrites over on the Right. Not only are they hypocrites, arguing that Libby did nothing wrong except what Bill Clinton did (except Bill Clinton was never brought to trial nor convicted), they do not realize just how effectively they have damaged the rule of Law. Because, let's be honest here, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in a treason case. If Libby would have come clean, the people Fitzgerald would have prosecuted would have been prosecuted for acts of treason against the US Government and the American people. The Administration and its enablers have commited treason, and they don't even realize the door they have opened!

It is self-evident that George Bush believes he is above the Law. It is self-evident that Dick Cheney believes that he is above the Law. It is self-evident that the enablers of this Administration, the MSM, the Republican Leadership, the Religious Right Leaders believe that they are above the Law. Are we, the American People, ready for the slippery slope that this president has placed us upon? If we do not act to curtail this power-grab, what will we do when the next president decides that he can more flagrantly ignore the Law? Are we ready to abdicate our rights to the government? The reason we have the government we do is so that no one group or person could become a tyrant. The Repiublican Leadership and its enablers chose to install a tyrant. Are they ready for when that tyrant turns on them?

We have but few means of recourse. Congress must do its duty. Impeach him! Impeach Cheney! Throw the whole criminal cabal in jail before it's too late! Do it now while we still can.

YOU CANNOT SPEAK UNLESS YOU HAVE THE MONEY

2007-06-27T09:22:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court recently ruled that if you are a corporation or union, you may pay to have political commercials put on which, while not directly calling for you to vote for a candidate, can indirectly influence your vote just before the election. They deemed this to be a Free Speech issue, protected by the First Amendment, the arguement coming down simply to money equals speech. Bench Memos at The National Review applauded this decision as a victory for Free Speech.

The Court also found that a high school student could indeed be punished for holding up a rather nonsensical sign at a high school function because he violated school rules and his speech was not in fact protected under the First Amendment. Bench Memos applauded this ruling as well, arguing that those damn high school kids just don't have the same rights as Corporations. Bench Memos, it seems, has no problem with Corporate Free Speech. It's just individual Free Speech they don't like.

I found one particular defense of the ruling in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case completely nonsensical. The following is a quote from Clarence Thomas to defend his concurrent opinion in the case:

"I am afraid that our jurisprudence now says that students have a right to speak in schools except when they don’t—a standard continuously developed through litigation against local schools and their administrators. In my view, petitioners could prevail for a much simpler reason: As originally understood, the Constitution does not afford students a right to free speech in public schools."

Now, I'm no legal scholar. Nor did I read the entire opinion by Justice Thomas, but on its face, this is ridiculous. I did read the beginning of Justice Thomas' opinion, and even he concedes that the public school system did not exist until the 1800s, so saying that the Constitution did not originally afford students a right to free speech in public schools is absurd as there were no public schools at the time!

But beyond that, if we follow Justice Thomas' logic, he should not be handing down opinions as The Constitution as originally understood does not afford Justice Thomas any rights as a citizen. Nor does it afford women any rights as citizens. In point of fact, as originally understood, The Constitution disenfranchises a significant portion of the population. Now, while the good folks at Bench Memos may believe that that would be a good thing, I would beg to differ. Justice Thomas, as well as the four who concurred with him and Bench Memos, is wrong; plain and simple. Their position in this case is against individual liberty and for Corporatism. Even were we to read The Constitution as Charles Beard interpreted it, it is evident that The Bill of Rights was meant as a protection of Individual Liberty, not corporate liberty. It does not take a legal scholar to point out that the Tenth Amendment provides that all rights not enumerated within The Constitution to the national government revert to the people. That includes the right to put up nonsensical signs, even at a school function.

But the more important point is that Bench Memos feels this is a win for conservatives, if by conservatives we mean people who put Corporate interests before those of individual interests. This is in fact the position of the modern conservative movement - we should not protect individual rights, we should protect corporate ones. Look at the present immigration debate. Those damn dirty illegal immigrants are coming to the US to take jobs from American citizens, according to The National Review and others. But not once has The National Review stated that corporate sponsorship of illegal immigration is one of its root causes. They do not call for punishment of the corporation which employs illegal immigrants; they blame the immigrants for wanting to create a better life for themselves and their families. Something which all of our forefathers wanted to do in this country.

Or we can look to the present administration in regards to the concept of protecting the corporation over the individual. The Administration believes that it's dealings are sacrosanct and must be kept secret at all costs, while individuals' right to privacy (another issue the conservative movement does not believe in - just look at how they would like to be able to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own bedroom as a consenting adult) are simply swept out of the way as The Administration sees fit, and the Conservative Movement goes into paroxyms of ecstasy at the manliness of these cowards. You need only look at nearly every major institution of our Government under this administration to see that the underlying position taken by the Modern Conservative Movement is to protect and strengthen Corporate control while weakening individual freedoms. The Modern Conservative Movement does not believe in individual freedom. They do not believe that we can, in fact, make our own decisions. Unfortunately, they seem to be correct about at least 35% of the population. Most importantly, they are doing everything in their power to deny us what freedoms we have and to allow the entities that they believe to be the only ones with any rights to further manipulate us. The Modern Conservative Movement hates individual liberty.

AMERICA THE PSYCHOTIC! PART 3

2007-02-11T14:27:00.000-05:00

In previous posts, I wrote about the media and the rightwing noise machine. Nothing I said was particularly original or different; there are hundreds of other bloggers all pretty much pointing out the same thing. At the end of that post, I also stated that I would be writing about the worse elements in our society which the Rightwing has chosen to ally itself with. One of those elements, and probably the most controversial of those is the Revelationist Movement.

The reason I consider the Reveletaionist Movement to be the most controversial is that unlike the Hate groups, which are not mainstream and are not considered to be viable, the Revelationist Movement is considered to be somewhat mainstream and a viable political as well as religious movement. You need only look at our President and what he has claimed in the past to see just how mainstream this movement is.

Again, there are many bloggers who have already taken great ains to point out just how perfidious this movement is. Talk to Action consistently tallies the Revelationist movement and its abuses. Crooks and Liars also regularly illuminates the insanity of this movement.

Why do I call this group insane? To put it quite simply, they act one way during the day, but believe and pray for something else. They act like your neightbors. They may even be friendly towards you most of the time. Yet given their beliefs, they are really only being nice to you because they believe you are damned to hell and doomed, just like any animal. Therefore, in their way of thinking, it really doesn't matter whether they are nice to you or not. You're dead anyway. And the only reason they are nice to you is because you always treat your animals nicely before you slaughter them.

For what else is their belief in Revelations, but the slaughter of all people except those who are to be raptured. If you are not one of the chosen, you will spend seven years on earth which will be like Hell, and all the unbelievers will either convert to the one true faith or be slaughtered. It is a violent end to everyone who doesn't believe as they do. It has very little to do with the teachings of Jesus.

So why is it a problem that these people believe as they do. Again, they place their belief in Revelations above all other beliefs. They act in a manner to hasten the The Rapture, to hasten the End Times and the conversion or death of all the rest of us. Which means, they don't believe in Global Warming, they want violence in the Middle East, and they do not tolerate any beliefs other than their own.

The problem again occurs when it comes to politics. The initial premise of our society was that a multiplicity of sects and factions would keep one sect or faction from becoming overly powerful. Up to now, this has more or less worked. But with the convergence of the Rightwing Noise Machine, the Incestuous Entrenched MSM, and the Revelationists, you no longer have a single sect or faction trying to dominate all the others, you have a single faction made up of disparate elements trying to dominate American Political Discourse. None of these elements by themselves can dominate the discourse, but together they make up a significant minority in the country.

The Revelationists are not by themselves a significant minority. They are a large minority, making up somewhere in the nature of a quarter of the population. Add to this your run-of-the-mill conservative, and other disaffected elements who wish to blame others for their failings, and that minority grows. The power-brokers in the MSM and the Rightwing Noise Machine with the help of the leaders of the Revelationist Movement bring their minions to bear n the Political process. The problem, of course, is that the Power Brokers believe they control the process. And at this time, it seems they do. But what happens when this coalition of the intolerant falls apart, which it will at some point. What will be left of our country when the intolerant have completely gutted our rights and freedoms because of the conviction in their own beliefs?

In the next section of this thought experiment, I shall continue to discuss the other misguided elements of our society.

AMERICA THE PSYCHOTIC! PART 2

2007-02-09T08:31:00.000-05:00

Last time I spoke generally about the irrelevance of the Media and how this plays into the advancing US psychosis. To reiterate briefly, The World burns, and we obsess about nothing. Like individual psychotic episodes, the US is disengaged from Reality. There appears to be a collective disconnect from what is actually happening and what we believe or wish to happen.

To continue now with the Media, which is after all supposedly our collective conscience, let us turn our attention to the conservative media and the triangulation which occurs amongst the Media, the Netroots, and the Political Classes. There is no comparable behavior on the Left-leaning side, thus giving the Right even more sway than they should have. While the so-called Middle obsesses over the death of Anna Nicole Smith, thereby rendering itself irrelevant, the Left shouts against the wind, itself relatively powerless since it does not in fact control much in the way of Media; The Right, on the other hand, uses its massive propaganda machine fueled by the consolidation of media, rightwing think tanks, and a single simple message, that message being that if you disagree, you are unamerican to beat us into submission. And so they get away with setting the Media agenda, which is why a story about Nancy Pelosi and her flights back to her district gains traction. Peter Daou does a much more competent job of explaining this than I have.

This, of course, does not completely explain why America appears to be sliding into Psychosis, but it is one major component of this slide. By marginalizing some of those that differ, you make it easier for others to gain traction. The Right, by itself, does not have, even with this triangulation, the numbers to actually gain control of our political system. They simply control the means to marginalize certain other elements in the debate, and by marginalizing those factions, they allow other factions to rise beyond their natural level.

The Middle level Media are also complicit in this, as they seem to take their marching orders from the Rightwing noise machine. There are numerous blogs which look at how the MSM and Washington have an incestuous relationship. See here and here to name but two. But that incestuous relationship is even more eggregious when you realize that Terry Moran of ABC News is the brother of the blogger Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse. Or that Jonah Goldeberg of National Review owes his position to his mother's rightwing predilections. Or that Katie O'Bernie's husband was the hiring officer for the CPA in Iraq. Or that Campbell Brown recently married Dan Senior, the spokesman for the CPA under Paul Bremer. And this list goes no and on.

Not to say that there has never been cross-pollination of Media and Politics before, but now that cross-pollination fits in very well with the desires of these Media outlets since very few of them are just Media outlets anymore.

There is more to this than what I have written, and I could go on forever, but I just want to point out lastly that the Conservative triangulation cannot in and of itself win elections. It does not have that kind of numbers. It is a minority, albeit a significant one, but by itself it is still a minority. So what it has done is insidious. It has allied itself with elements which do not want America to survive. It has allied itself not with the best this country has to offer, but with the worst. And while those worst elements again, do not make up a majority, there are just enough of them to help push elections over. In the next part of this series, I will be discussing those elements.

UPDATE: If the following is true, then you really have to wonder whether there is any difference between the Rightwing Noise Machine and the MSM.

AMERICA THE PSYCHOTIC! PART 1

2007-02-08T17:29:00.000-05:00

Now, before anyone starts writing me nasty emails about this, as I expect I will finally have some traffic (Thank you Jon Swift for adding me to your blogroll), I believe that there are many excellent aspects of our Country (Yes, I think it's my Country too). As I have argued many times before, the fundamental principles upon which this Country was founded are some of the most high-minded and exceptional principles ever found in History. Our freedom to think and live pretty much how we as individuals determine our lives is something envied by most of the rest of the World as is our economic prosperity. We have created a country both unique for its aspirations and accessible because of its beliefs in opportunity and self-worth. Which makes this all the more horrifying as we allow our country to slide into psychosis.

That may seem harsh. Psychosis. Isn't that insanity? Yes, it is. But you need only look at the News for the day to see that this judgement is not too far off. As of today, 3,114 US soldiers have died in the Occupation of Iraq, and total non-mortal casualties in the neighborhood of47,657. Yet, given these horrendous figures (imagine how long we will be dealing with this mistake of a War), what was the top story of the day? Why, it was Nancy Pelosi and the Republican outrage over the aircraft put at her disposal to travel home to her district! The third most powerful figure in our Government, and Republican lawmakers were upset about the aircraft that was to be placed at her disposal to go home! And, of course, this is what the News Media deemed to be an important story. (Update: as I write this, the new breaking story is the death of Anna Nicole Smith. This story is considered so big that Keith Olbermann, not one usually associated with tabloid journalism, spent nearly half his show on it: a new low for MSNBC.) And the top story the previous two days was the Lust in Space story; an astronaut who drove some 900 miles to supposedly kill her supposed rival for a fellow astronaut.

So the so-called MSM adds nothing to the conversation. While the World struggles with poverty, violence, natural disasters, and even their own political scandals, which actually pertain to what is happening in the countries in question, the US spends like a drunken sailor and gossips about the death of a person who was famous for being famous. The Main-Stream Media should be considered irrelevant. End of Part 1.

IRAN; THE SCAPEGOAT AND THE EXCUSE!

2007-02-01T17:57:00.000-05:00

It has become abundantly clear that BushCo intends to force a military confrontation with Iran, whether a pre-emptive air strike or an all-out ground war is simply the question. The Assistant Secretary of State has been making noises about the so-called Iran threat and the proof they have, recent reports concerning the attack on US soldiers in Karbala have been blamed on Iran, though no proof has been presented. And the MSM has quite simply decided to follow along, though at least this time there seems to be some scepticism.

So why now? Admittedly, Bush has called Iran one of the "Axis of Evil" (odd that given that Iran is a working democracy and actually allows women rights which they do not receive from our allies in the region e.g. Saudi Arabia) for awhile now, but the rhetoric has been mostly lip-service. Not that Bush would not have attacked Iran if he thought he could, but he went first to Iraq. So what new reasons are there for this sudden show of bellicosity?

To put it quite simply, Bush and BushCo. have to find a scapegoat and an excuse for their failure, and the easiest way for this to be effective is to sound the alarm about Iran. Iran, Iran, Iran. The Iranians are providing weapons to the Shia Militias! The Iranians are aiding the suicide bombers. The Iranians wish to control Iraq and to punish the US. I doubt very much that Bush actually believes any of these platitudes. But for him, it's a matter of not being held responsible. Bush, as he has said himself, doesn't care about his legacy; he cares only that he is not held ultimately responsible for the catastrophe that is his Iraq policy. He is the petulant two-year-old who when he sees he is about to lose, changes the rules of the game so that the game continues until he wins. Or everyone else simply becomes bored with playing.

Which makes it all the easier for the truly insane who believe that this is the correct policy to pursue these policies. So while it is obvious that Bush cares little about all of this, there is a cadre of policymakers, the so-called serious men, who believe wholly in this policy and will force US to continue to pursue it, come Hell or High Water. They will in the end destroy the US because they care nothing about the US; they care only about their policies and their belief in those policies. Cheney is such a man. McCain is such a man. Most of the contributors to the National Review are such men and women. The War Whore Michael Ledeen is not only such a man, he is also the ultimate hypocrite. He now says that he never advocated for war in Iraq, even though there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

And so now, unable to admit to the catastrophe that is Iraq, they turn their attention to Iran and blame Iran for all their troubles. Because, as everyone knows, Iran invaded Iraq in March of 2003. And the War Whores that bellowed for War cannot bring themselves to admit that they may have been wrong.

THE DECISION-MAKER vs. THE PUBLIC SERVANT

2007-01-29T18:01:00.000-05:00

Lately, all we hear is how George Bush is the Decision-Maker, the Commander In Chief, the High Mucky-Muck, and we should all listen to him and just do what he says. That's an interesting take, because if you read The Constitution, nowhere does it say that the President becomes Commander In Chief of The United States. No, in fact, it says he becomes Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces. I did not join the Armed Forces. George Bush is not my Commander In Chief; he is my servant. He is not the decision-maker; he is the individual who carries out our decisions.

All you have to do is read The Constitution and the documents used to ratify it. The President was to be the public face of the Government as Congress with all its representatives could not be. But the President cannot make Law. He does not legislate; he executes the Law as given to him by the Legislature, in this case Congress. And all of these individuals, Congress and The President are representatives of the People. They are Public Servants. It would be nice if they acted like that.

Instead, we get Dick Cheney calling those of us who are demanding that he do his job, which is to represent the interests of the American people, traitors. Making statements such as "I'm the Vice President, and they're not." Instead we get George Bush telling us that he's the Decider, that he's the Decision-Maker. Which is a bunch of crap. George Bush believes that he is the ultimate arbiter of what it is to be an American. He believes that he can do whatever he wants, and that the law does not apply to him. In fact, the entire Administration believes that they are not Public Servants, that they are Sovereign and we are vassals.

If I remember correctly, there was a small war fought over that very issue.

If you'd like to read people better at explaining this, go to Glenn Greenwald's site. Or Atrios. Both had rather extensive posts on this subject.

bush

GEORGE WILL IS AN IDIOT!

2007-01-28T10:56:00.000-05:00

I was going to write about the Republicans in general, but then I was sitting here watching This Week with George Stefanopoulus and George Will is sitting there on the panel defending the President's bogus Healtcare Plan. And just about everyone else on the panel is arguing against him.

Will is an idiot. Plain and simple. The rest of the panelists are also idiots. Set aside the stupidity of the President's plan for Healthcare and the way it would be paid for, let's get first principles straight. Healthcare is not a commodity. It is a necessity. We talk about equality of opportunity, yet how can you have equality of opportunity when you allow member of your community to be sick?

47 million Americans do not have Health Insurance. When they get sick they wait until the situation becomes nearly untenable. In many cases, this means they become unable to work, unable to tak care of themselves, which leads to a downward spiral in their standard of living and their families standard of living. In effect, we damn those that cannot afford Health Insrance to a life of uncertainty and anxiety. We damn them to a second class citizen status.

The President's plan won't help that because like most people, he believes Healthcare is a commodity. He believes that you can pick and choose your healthcare just like you can pick and choose the style, color, and model of your car. Which, on its face, is just wrong. Imagine, for instance, breaking your arm. Now, according to the commodity view of Healthcare, you would sit down and study your options and pick the best option for taking care of your broken arm. Of course, this ignores the fact that you might be in terrible pain, that while you're studying which Healthcare option is best you may get gangrene, and a host of other problems. Not to mention work lost.

What happens when you cannot get healthcare is that you work sick and you do it up to the point until you can't work anymore. And then you either strain the healthcare system or lose your job, or more likely both. So in the end, not only do you pull down yourself and your family, you pull down the system. Stephen Colbert covered the financial aspects of the President's plan on his show the day after the SOTU. He put it best concerning that aspect. But let's not kid ourselves, Healthcare is a necessity, not a commodity. And as long as we think of it as a commodity, we won't move this debate forward.

THE NEW WAY FORWARD = OCCUPATION

2006-12-13T11:50:00.000-05:00

Bill Bennett was on The Today Show this morning, speaking about Iraq. Matt Lauer made mention of Bennett's remarks concerning the Iraq Study Group and how he had characterized them, and I was taken by the fact that Bennett's characterization matched Bennett to to Tee. I believe his words were that the Iraq Study Group was the most self-righteous and smug group he had ever heard. Had I been Matt Lauer, I would have suggested that Mr. Bennett should take a look in the mirror were he looking for self-righteous and smug. But that is all a digression to the more important point: We are never leaving Iraq.

Look, let's be honest: the Conventional War with the Iraqi military is long over and we won that. We destroyed the Iraqi military almost without a thought. The Conventional War which our soldiers fought was a resounding success, never mind the legality of it. But we have managed to make a complete hash of the Occupation, for that is what we are in now. We are Occupiers.

I've written about this once before, and others more knowledgeable and more erudite have also written about this, but the conventional consensus persists in calling our Occupation of Iraq a War. And as Bill Bennett pointed out this morning, then the terms used are victory or defeat. We must win the War. The problem is, we have already won the War; but we have lost the Occupation. Which brings me to the title. The only way Bush can appear as anything other than the completely incompetent CIC is by continuing to call what we are in in Iraq a War, because Wars end, and they usually end with a victor. So Bush and the Neocons continue to call our involvement in it War. The only War going on in Iraq is the Civil War there; we are stuck in the middle of it!

We are occupiers. Let's face it; that's what we're doing there. Occupation, in and of itself, is not a good or bad thing; after all, we occupied Germany and Japan after WWII and still have bases in both of those nations because of our occupation. Our relations with both countries are overall good, though starined now since we don't seem to have any sense of restraint anymore. But what we have done in Iraq is quite simply criminal. First, we invaded on false pretenses, then we ignored the necessary infrastructure needed for occupation. And here's where Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bremer, Senor, and all the rest prove how criminal they are. Not a single one of them thought that there may be more to taking over a nation than just winning a conventional war. Not a single one of them looked back in history just two generations old and saw what was necessary to solidify the gains made by the allies in defeating Germany and Japan.

History shows that to maintain order, the US and its allies did not disband the infrastructure of Germany and Japan. We did not tear up the institutions of those societies, leaving a vaccuum. But Bush and his cadre dont' really study anything. For Bush, this was always just an exercise in one-upmanship. There was never any threat from Iraq. Bush Jr. just wanted to play leader, just like he played at everything else. And once the initial euphoria of showing what a great leader was over, he lost interest in the hard work necessary to hold Iraq together. Just as he lost interest in everything else he's ever done. Just as he's lost interest in rebuilding New Orleans. And the only reason he is now even considering any changes in Iraq policy is because for the first time someone (the American Voters, six years too late) is holding him responsible, something no one has ever done to him before.

But there will be no change in policy or the change in policy will be to send more troops because that would be an admission that we did something wrong. No; Bush will state when he finally talks to us that we need to chart a new course which will be pretty much the old course. We will stand down when the Iraqis stand up. We must win this thing and we will win this thing, if only we persevere. And he's right to a certain extent. If we stay there for 20, 30 years or more, Iraq will become stable again. Just like Vietnam is stable again. And he'll feel he's vindicated, because to him what's improtant is not how many US soldiers died, not how many Iraqis died, not how much treasure we spent prosecuting this illegal war, not what it's done to the country and our civil liberties: No; what matters to him is his reputation. He is so wrapped up in himself, that he actually believes that what is best for him is best for the country. He has become what Richard Nixon was accused of: an Imperial President of the first magnitude. He does not do the country's bidding; the country does his. But the truth is the Emperor has no clothes (or thoughts, for that matter).

A final question that needs to be asked: Just how many lives, how much of our country, how much treasure are we willing to sacrifice for George Bush to not feel as though he failed? How much are we willing to scarifice for the continued Occupation of Iraq?

4 TO 6 MONTHS

2006-11-28T18:14:00.000-05:00

It's impossible to keep up at this point. The situation in Iraq deteriorates daily. The Great Pundit Class pontificates without the slightest clue or self-irony about how wrong they have been and continue to be about Iraq. And the so-called experts continue to explain that the situation will change in 4 to 6 months. It's funny that, or it would be if it weren't so tragic, but the ex-military and ex-career diplomats who expound on Iraq have been telling us pretty much the same thing for 2 years now. So at what point does 4 to 6 months really become just 4 to 6 months?

It doesn't help that George the Third has abdicated responsibility for this mess. You can see it in his behavior. He no longer believes that Iraq is his baby. Oh, he keeps spouting the words about how we will win if we don't leave, but what he's really arguing for now is don't leave before he leaves. Let someone else be held responsible for pulling out of Iraq. Let someone else take the blame. After all, George has never taken responsibility for anything he's ever done. He's always had someone else bail out his sorry ass. Or he just leaves before it all goes to hell. All anyone had to do was look at this sorry-assed idiot's past performance and we (the Good Ole US of A) could have been spared this past 6 years.

But we mustn't blame just poor little George. No; there's plenty of blame to go around. We shouldn't forget the Republican Party. No; they are not blameless. They chose party over country. They chose ideology over The US Constitution. They chose extremism over what is Right and True. They wanted so much to be in control, they acted like the corrupt little prigs some people thought they were. They proved all those people correct.

The Democrats, on the other hand, forgot that they needed to grow a pair. For nearly 6 years, they let the lying, thieving Republican Congress and Administration do just that: Lie and Rob us blind. They rolled over for a war that made no sense simply because they were afraid of looking weak, and what happened: they looked even weaker. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Let's not let the idiot right-wingnuts off either. The NeoCons, the TheoCons, the Christianists. No; the US Constitution doesn't exist for these people. Ideology is all. Their latest tactic is to argue that "Well yes, the situation was screwed from the beginning, but let's look to the present and future and show us how to get out of this mess." This is what you will hear for the next two years from these petty, bullying despots. They will scream and shout about how the Democrats can't stabilize Iraq, can't get us out of Iraq without the country falling into chaos (oh, wait; it's already there), that we should vote for their next Authoritarian who promises to save us from ourselves, even while he curtails our liberties. And they will use their constant whining to try to get us to forget that we are in this mess because too many believed them when they first came up with this insanity.

So let us remember all of the insane, inept, incompetent, and just plain wrong who continue to state that their policy is the only policy which makes sense. And let us remember the screeching harpies who shouted "traitor" and "coward" at those of us who had the good sense to actually look at the situation before diving in and ask what were we diving into. Because if we don't remember these criminals, these cowards, these bigots, then we run the risk that two years from now, they will have rehabilitated their reputations enough that we will once again find ourselves ruled by madmen and tyrants, and perhaps then, we won't be able to get out at all.

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?

2006-11-24T12:57:00.000-05:00

I had planned to write about the supposed call for bipartisanship by the Republican Leadership (amazing how you suddenly become bipartisan when your side gets thrashed in the last election), but something more important intruded. I was watching television, and right there on my tv was a commercial for Citgo offering people who couldn't afford heating oil a 40% discount. To say the least, it made me take notice. Not just because Hugo Chavez was doing what he said he was going to do (and everyone knows Chavez is the great South American Boogeyman), but because of what we in our own country are not willing to do: we are not willing to help the working poor.

It's ironic that the richest nation ever, richer by far than the British Empire was, does not take care of its own and has to rely on the generosity of Venezuela for heating oil for its less fortunate brethren. Its ironic that a devout Christian President sees no problem with taking away opportunities from those less fortunate than himself, for people who did not get born with the right family connections. Its ironic that devout Evangelicals spend thousands of dollars to advertise against the supposed sin of homosexuality and abortion but do nothing to try to help alleviate the poverty of millions of our fellow citizens. 16% of school-aged children live in poverty, meaning they don't have proper nutrition, proper supervision, or the benefits of stable family life. Yet we wonder why they cannot learn. Republicans and Democrats both demand stricter school policies, better test scores, more accountability by teachers, but what about the accountability of our society for what we do to the working poor and the disenfranchised of our country. What about our accountability?

We talk a good game about equality of opportunity, but where is that really? How do you get an equal chance at the Gold ring when you're hungry, you're cold, you're tired, and you're worried about whether or not you'll survive until the next day? How much potential are we destroying simply through negligence? How many young people out there could possibly chnage our world but will never get the chance because we don't believe in helping our own? Becuase we believe that if you are poor or underfed or cold, it's your fault. Even if you happen to be six years old.

It's the Holidays, and for the next month or so, we'll all pay lipservice to the poor and the disenfranchised. But what happens when the holidays are over? Do we go back to forgetting, or do we actually remember those in need and try to help? Do we let Hugo Chavez be our conscience, or do we finally have a concience of our own?

BRING ON THE GROWN UPS; PART DEUX

2006-11-19T15:28:00.001-05:00

Since the Democratic victory in the House and Senate (Thank God!), we hear on a daily basis that George the Third understands the message the Citizenry of the USA is telling him, and that he is listening. Why! The very first thing he did was can Rummy's dimply cellulite ass, so he must be listening. Right?

I'm calling Bullshit! Bush has no intention of trying to correct the shitcan that Iraq has become. As he pointed out while visiting Vietnam, he thinks we're winning unless we pull out. It is obvious to anyone with half-a-brain that the President has none. The sheer stupidity of stating that we are winning just because we are still there is, to say the least, suspect. Unfortunately, Woody Allen's now famous quote that "80% of success is just showing up" is not a strategy for success when it comes to fighting a war.

Couple this with the President's belief that somehow now that the Dems have taken the House and the Senate John Bolton would become a reasonable candidate for US Ambassador to the UN and the renomination of judges who have extreme views and are not afraid to rule in those directions, and you can see that Bush plans not to give up anything. Which brings me to the Grown Ups.

Supposedly, Bush has gone running for guidance to Daddy, and Daddy will fix it all by having his grown up friends save little Georgie. One problem: The grown ups aren't so grown up. It doesn't take much digging to point out that Daddy Bush was the President who was shocked by the cost of milk at the Supermarket. Or that Rumsfeld and Cheney were advisors to Daddy Bush just like they are to little Georgie now. Nothing's changed; just some set pieces have been rearranged.

And let's not forget that the 2000 Election was the Election where the grown ups were going to take charge. Bush was going to bring integrity and honesty back to the White House. The country was going to be led by a CEO President (never mind that the companies he was CEO of all went belly up; never mind that he never did anything without Daddy bailing him out). Instead, what did we get? We got 6 years of spiralling deficits. We got nearly six years of War. We have more poor citizens than when he became President. And we have Fundamentalist Religious Right Hate Groups who believe that the country somehow belongs to them and that they can do whatever the Fuck they want to with it! They can help Little Georgie gut The Constitution, break into our bedrooms, and tell us what to think.

But, as the Mighty MSM tells us, the grown ups are once again in charge in the WH. This is what they told us when Little Georgie was running for election. This is what they tell us now. But think about it: when has the MSM been correct about anything in the last 6 years? Editorially, almost to a man and woman (save Frank Rich and Keith Olbermann; and on occassion Maureen Dowd) they have fed us Republican crap as if it were reality. We went to war in Iraq because no one in the MSM spoke up against it. Little Georgie was elected President a second time because the MSM sat on its hands and pretended to be objective when all they were really being is a bunch of spineless lapdogs! They let John Kerry get smeared and helped spread those smears, all the while shouting that Democrats were doing bad things too. But when push came to shove, the MSM had to reach pretty far down into its sack of shit to find a Democratic smear that wasn't true, while the Republican ones weren't true right off the bat and every Republican mother and her son knew it and didn't care!

During the midterms, the smears didn't stop. It's allright if a Republican does it, is it. And as Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and the other Beltway Bandits with no sense of shame seem to point out so well, they are quite good at enabling the Republican criminal elite. We heard constantly how the Dems need to show a plan, how they have to have a plan for Iraq, but never did they seem to ask what exactly the Republican plan for Iraq is or was. Never! And it didn't just stop there. On nearly every issue, the Republican position was accepted as being the predominant one, even when opnion polls proved otherwise. Raise the minimum wage, Republican position was no because it would harm small business (like they care about small business). Public position was yes, it needs to be raised. Global Warming; Republican position is is that it doesn't exist; General public, we should deal with it. But the great US punditocracy continues to only sell us the Republican position! And when someone points out that they are pandering to their paymasters, they laugh it off and pretend that it's the Democrats fault.

The truth is is that the grown ups aren't in the White House. The present bunch of advisors are no better than the previous bunch. Their cut fromthe same clothe. Their ideas helped shape the ideas of the idiots who got us into this mess. If it can be believed, Henry Kissinger, the idiot who managed to nearly destroy us in Vietnam, has been advising Little Georgie and the advice has been to stay the course. Do you honestly believe that now that Rummy's gone things will get better? Not until the two morons at the top fo the pile are shitcanned will that happen. We need to have the House and Senate proceed with impeachment hearings as soon as they are able. Until then, we will continue down this ruinous road.