Today We Choose Faces

Feel it tilt and start to slide

2009-04-19T16:32:00.005-04:00

McCarthy's empty-rhetoric infomercial was delivered in an openly snide, sarcastic and insincere manner that would occlude any legitimate message, if he had one. Since he didn't, "snide, sarcastic and insincere" is the message. Par for the GOP course these days.

"...and we know that when the government spends our hard-earned tax money, we should be guaranteed accountability. That's why House Republicans are unveiling Washington Watch, a new website tracking misuse of taxpayer dollars and stimulus waste."

That says it all. The message is entirely negative. The public face of the GOP has no interest in informing the public in an honest, evenhanded or comprehensive fashion, but only in identifying targets and lobbing snarkbombs. This is a political party whose radical rightist leadership has become intentionally corrosive to plurality, cooperation, and, as a result, the Union itself - whether they admit it (even to themselves) or not. Many among them are openly seeking to foment an overthrow of the government, employing only the thinnest veil of pretense to mask this fact.

Meanwhile, the "terrorist organizations"^* are watching all of this with keen interest. Why? Because if our society collapsed upon itself, our governmental and commercial faculties would become far weaker abroad as the crisis at home took precedent over all else. Hence, they would have much less incentive to attack us here again, as they will have a much clearer path toward accomplishing their primary goal: throwing off the mantle of "global" (foreign) interests, and achieving uncontested control over their local resources - resources which (need I even say it?) are absolutely vital to maintaining our accustomed way of life.

I really only see a few directions this can go:

The radical rightists get what they have been itching for: a crumbling of the social order, which is a necessary precursor to establishing a more authoritarian one. They would prefer this episode to be brief - a coup, rather than a war - because that would leave our globally deployed military forces intact enough to prevent the "terrorist organizations" from achieving their goals. (In this case, expect more terrorist attacks on our soil.)

The radical rightists get what they've been itching for, but it spirals out of their control and the US descends into civil war. (In this case, we become a self-terrorizing nation, and while we weaken ourselves, the Middle East power bloc consolidates.)

Things spiral out of everybody's control, and we lay waste to the planet.

The slimmest possibility: The US and its subsidiary and interest-convergent powers are eventually forced to accept a much-needed shift in the global power structure, away from imperialism. The rich nations become poorer, there is new and continued tumult and upheaval, but the world economy gradually becomes more stable.

Well, that was a bit more than I intended to say at first. But in truth, every major story in the news is a pinhole-camera story about this.

__________

^*The term "terrorist organization" is such a misnomer - a half-truth intended to whip up fear and obscure a larger reality, if ever there were one. It's almost as bad as claiming that "they hate our freedom", when in fact they hate that our freedom = their poverty. And don't even whine to me about how that's their own fault, not ours. We have systematically propped up tyrants of resource-rich countries because they're far cheaper to pay off than governments that represent their entire populations. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Fact is, the "terrorist organizations" are the ideological twins of our own gun-totin' radical rightists. And here's the rub: neither group is really wrong to be pissed off! (I just wish the rank-and-file members of all of these groups had a bigger-picture understanding of who they should be pissed off at, and why.)

I have by no means presented the whole story here, either - not by deliberate omission, but because it would be virtually impossible to do so. I don't intend to paint a sympathetic picture of these militant groups. However, it's essential to acknowledge and accept the flip-side of the truth that is deliberately withheld from the public discourse if a truly comprehensive understanding is to be attained.

Buddy, can you spare some CHANGE?

2009-01-05T01:27:00.001-05:00

The Congress, especially the Senate, is woefully corrupt, and for decades it has increasingly abdicated its public governing authority, thrusting this instead upon the presidency, so that behind the scenes (yet more and more brazenly as time goes by), it can continue to ignore blatant conflicts of interest by wielding illicit power in collusion with elite financial, commercial and religious figures, foreign and domestic, whose interests are at odds with those of the People.

And the People squabble amongst each other, rather than uniting to confront this massive evil.

Obama, at least, has thus far sided with the People when they have staged protests against the corrupt business practices of such institutions as the Bank of America. But if the People truly want a just and accountable system, and not merely to whine about how corrupt it is, then they must ACT.

However, this will not happen before they are made to suffer something more severe than a loss of their 401Ks and higher credit card rates.

Things must get worse before they can get better.

Welcome to 2009.

Your vote may be at risk: Michigan

2008-09-16T16:44:00.005-04:00

Lose your house, lose your vote

By Eartha Jane Melzer 9/10/08 6:42 AM

Michigan Republicans plan to foreclose African-American voters

The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County, Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.

“We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses,” [GOP] party chairman James Carabelli told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral procedures were followed.

(read more)

This is outrageous! Transparently draconian voter suppression tactics such as this strike directly at the very heart of our nation's principles, and as such should carry penalties on par with treason. What kind of sick-minded creature dreams up ways to steal fundamental rights from the struggling and downtrodden, in broad daylight, and claim legal protection for doing so?

Home foreclosure is not an acceptable litmus test for voter eligibility. Many people continue to live in foreclosed homes for months as they work out arrangements with their banks, often finding ways to keep their houses in the long run. Many more are simply renters, who are not necessarily under any obligation to move even if the property changes hands.

It's hard to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy by the "America first" party. Intentionally excluding people from the democratic process for economic reasons should deeply offend all Americans, especially as the entire nation slips deeper into this financial downturn.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in this election, a person who votes for the GOP is either woefully misinformed, a willing dupe, flat-out stupid, or just plain evil.

Wise words from a real wise cracker

2008-09-11T12:48:00.002-04:00

Craig Ferguson just became my hero du jour.

Your vote may be at risk: Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada

2008-09-08T01:44:00.007-04:00

Obama Doesn't Sweat. He should.

In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.

In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters.

In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.

In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.

(read more)

Nearly 600,000 Subject to Possible Caging in Ohio

How many voter-registration mass mailers are "returned to sender" in the run-up to Election Day may determine how many Ohio residents are eligible to vote.

Ohio election officials are sending out a mass mailer stamped "do not forward" to all registered voters today (Sept. 5) with an absentee ballot application and other important notices for Nov. 4.

What's important here is not so much what's going out as what's being returned to sender.

Unbeknownst to the would-be recipients, the same mailer - just 60 days before the election - has the potential to determine their eligibility to vote, challenged not by election officials but by partisan opposition.

(read more)

Greg Palast and RFK in NYC- MayDay 2007

Words of Advice for Young People

2008-09-05T16:09:00.001-04:00

...from someone who has been around the block quite a few times in every conceivable direction - and also knows the shortcuts through your back yard.

Obama & O'Reilly

2008-09-05T11:49:00.007-04:00

Bill O'Reilly interviewed Obama recently. The first part of the video aired on Fox last night:

Although I think Obama did a reasonably good job of addressing the issues, I continue to be disappointed with how he handles "spin"terviews such as Bill O'Reilly and Rick Warren conduct. McCain ends up appearing stronger in these venues, because he panders to the audience by providing tidy little stump-speech soundbite answers, which highlight his cock-sure decisiveness but offer nothing to suggest he has an adult-level understanding of the issues.

At what point will it become standard operating procedure (for all public figures) to address not just the words of the questions, but their unspoken premises? I know Obama's got it in him. It's what he did with Jon Ralston a while back. So why doesn't he stick to it?

And with all Bill's interrupting, Obama should have said to him sternly and in no uncertain terms:

"Bill, you're asking me simple-sounding questions but these are very complex, important issues. It takes more than a couple of sentences to do them justice, and the American people deserve the opportunity to hear what I have to say about them. You're going to have to allow me the opportunity to give you honest, complete answers, or there can be no point in continuing this conversation."
Next instance:

"Bill, if you're not going to permit me to respond to your questions, you are not conducting an honest or ethical interview. This is not how adults communicate. I am not avoiding your questions; you are avoiding my answers. I understand that as president, I may have to contend with some belligerent, bellicose leaders of foreign nations, but this is beneath you, and beneath the American people."
Third instance:

"Mr. O'Reilly, unless you are intentionally positioning yourself as hostile to me, you need to let me answer your questions completely and honestly. Otherwise, it's safe to say that diplomacy has failed, and just as if I were negotiating with a hostile foreign leader, I will move away from talks and on to sanctions."
If O'Reilly doesn't immediately adopt and maintain a more respectful tone, the response should be:

"You've made your choice, Mr. O'Reilly. I regret that you have chosen to serve yourself, rather than the American public, and I cannot be party to this. Goodbye."

Masters of the Permanent Campaign

2008-09-05T09:23:00.006-04:00

To celebrate the end of the Republican National Convention, I offer a little light music in honor of the party's leaders.

A modest proposition.

2008-09-04T13:11:00.007-04:00

I propose that, in identifying the positions people hold with respect to religion, politics, science, or any other realm of thought, "moron" is a class all unto itself. Just as a "liberal" can't be a "conservative", and vice-versa (at least on the same issue, and in the same context—i.e. political, fiscal, religious, etc.), a "moron" can't be either of the above, or anything else for that matter, because he is too ill-informed to have an opinion worth considering. In short, I propose that "moron" is exclusive of every other category. If you are a moron on a given subject, you cannot represent liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites…Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or any other race, color, creed, tint or hue. On that subject, you are a moron, and nothing else.

I'm talking about, for example,

people who do not even understand the definitions of the terms they use.
people who believe emotional invective is an acceptable substitute for substance in an argument.
people who dwell in a never-ending infinite-tunnel-vision mental realm, blithely unaware that their opinions result from circular reasoning, by "virtue" [sic] of the fact that they recursively believe in their own beliefs.

...as well as others. You know—well, some of you do: MORONS!

If only we had a reliable Smart-O-Meter so we wouldn't have to waste so much time identifying or, what's worse, talking to the morons — that is, the people too ill-informed on a particular subject, and stubbornly committed to remaining so, to be worth listening to — in the first place. It would be a win-win situation for all. The morons would even have a chance to realize they ARE morons, because they might eventually notice that smart people exist, but that no smart people ever talk to them on particular subjects. And the people who AREN'T morons could get on with the business of dealing with real issues without interference and babble from MORONS!

Alas, such a device does not exist. Non-morons must resign themselves, at least for the nonce, to occasionally mingling with morons, at least in public conversations. And, sadly, the only known way to induce a moron to shed his tragic/comic ignorance is to deal with him directly, and try to coax the fragile bud of reason (if any) atop his brainstem to bloom.

The success rate of this method is dismal. But, like our prison system and our government, it's all we've got right now.

Beyond the Pale: The Ethics of Sarah Palin

2008-09-03T19:58:00.011-04:00

Today she chooses faces

FACT: The McCain campaign has marketed Palin as "a reformer and a leader on ethics reform." [link]

FACT: In the last week of July, Alaska's Republican-dominated Legislative Council voted unanimously to probe whether Sarah Palin abused the power of her office in order to have Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan fired on July 11. [link]

FACT: On Friday, August 1, Sarah Palin stated that she is "very, very open to answering any questions anybody has of me or administrators." [link]

FACT: More recently Sarah Palin's lawyer, Thomas Van Flein, who was hired to represent Palin on August 21, asserted that the case should be handled by the state's Personnel Board -- whose three members were appointed by the governor herself. [link] (ibid.)

FACT: Van Flein also stated that the pre-existing investigation is "bad timing" because of the presidential campaign, and that he therefore couldn't guarantee that she'd be free to sit down for her deposition this month. [link] (ibid.)

So, if there is a legitimate question about her ethics, that should take a backseat because she is seeking a position of greater power?

And ethics probes are appropriately conducted by appointees of the one being probed?

And that's supposed to constitute ethics reform?

Unless we are to believe that Palin's lawyer does not speak for her in the same way that McCain himself does not speak for his campaign, I think it's safe to say it now: The duplicity of Palin's behavior, like that of McCain's judgment, is beyond the pale - it is altogether transparent.

Other sources:

Palin by Comparison

2008-09-02T02:40:00.005-04:00

Remember when Saddam Hussein's half-brother, Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti, was decapitated during his hanging at the beginning of last year?

Know why that happened?

Too much rope.

Say what you will - and I freely admit that this is nothing more than my opinion - but I have a strong sense that that's how Sarah Palin's time in the national spotlight is going to play out, metaphorically speaking.

But regardless, thank you, Mr. McCain, for further exposing the dearth of sound judgment that characterizes the core of the modern Republican party. Seriously.

Obama spars with Jon Ralston

2008-08-25T00:46:00.004-04:00

This video is a few weeks old now, but it is worth posting as an example of how to confront and engage media bias in a positive way: Expose the unspoken precepts of the questions, correct them, and discuss the overarching issue in a meaningful way.

If Obama could just exhibit this kind of sharp-sighted clarity on a regular basis, I think a lot of the doubts about his ability to lead would begin to dissipate. I know I'd certainly feel a lot better about him.

Unfortunately, his politics & apparent reluctance to draw blood seem to trump his rationality and shrewdness all too often. He lets himself be framed, literally, all too often, as we saw at Saddleback.

Here's hoping we'll see some more of this level of engagement in the upcoming weeks.

Conservative Wisdom, thy name is Andrew J. Bacevich

2008-08-16T16:32:00.013-04:00

Please take the time to watch this 2-part video.

As you watch, note the stark difference between this example of journalistic inquiry and what passes as responsible journalism on the 24-hour news networks that dominate the news media.

If you are impressed with this program, please consider donating to PBS. We need clarity of perception and depth of character such as this to reassert itself into the mainstream of public awareness.

Part 1

Part 2

Don't bite the hand that feeds on you.

2008-07-29T11:19:00.003-04:00

A Well-Deserved Spanking

2008-07-18T13:58:00.005-04:00

If you're into a little S&M - that's Satire & Music, by they way (wink, wink) - maybe The Asylum Street Spankers will tickle your fancy. C'mon now, whose fancy wouldn't benefit from a little tickling? Drop your pants, ease into the stirrups, and stay a while.

Bill Moyers on Big Oil

2008-06-28T19:36:00.008-04:00

Streaming Consciousness

2008-06-23T01:40:00.010-04:00

"After silence, that which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music."

- Aldous Huxley

McCain vs. McCain

2008-06-16T10:37:00.006-04:00

Nothing to see here. Move along.

The Melting Pot has become a crucible.Are We, the People steel or slag?

2008-06-13T15:49:00.021-04:00

Prior to 2001, I sometimes heard people say that the US public is so far out of touch with the issues that affect it that it would take a war to wake them up. Occasionally, I was one of those people. Now that we're fighting not one, but two wars, the public still seems to be wrestling with reality in a hypnopompic state, which, while promising, is still maddening to people who are cognizant and rational. Now some people think it will take something more immediate, like a foreign invasion of our shores or a nuke, to bring the US public to full wakefulness.

I tend to agree with the overall sense of this remark - that is, that it will take something yet more immediate than what we have so far experienced - but an invasion ain't gonna happen. A nuke could, in theory, but is really unnecessary since our runaway government is already driving us toward a severe depression. We responded improperly to 9/11, as bin Laden figured we would, and we are now bankrupting ourselves trying to defeat radical anti-Americanism using tactics that just breed more of it. From al-Qaeda's point of view, it's probably now just a matter of letting the topheavy machine tear itself apart struggling to regain its balance while trying to fight fire ants with fire.

In light of this, I have a question for members of the Fall-In-Line faction of any political persuasion:

When are you guys going to admit that we've all been lied to and betrayed for decades, by the mouthpieces on both the left AND the right?

The politics of division is literally destroying the republic, and it's doing so by deceiving people into buying into false dichotomies, most notably of "right versus left". And it's effective because too many people accept simple stories to explain complex realities.

The truth is, we cannot see the virtues of each others' points of view when we are polarized against each other.

For example, I hear some on the right rail against socialism in every form, without even giving a thought to the fact that our fire and police departments, and our libraries, are examples of socialism. Our schools are, too, although there's a case to be made against that -- or at least in favor of an extreme restructuring of it.

And on the left, we hear the thoughtless assertion that restricting gun ownership will necessarily lead to a less violent society. Yeah, and tyranny without rebellion wouldn't be violent, either.

There are many, many more examples I could cite, but the most maddening one of all is, both the left and the right claim the MSM is a tool of the other side. This should be a clue, people! The media isn't as interested in reporting the news as it is in fomenting controversy around the news. So it has a vested interest in polarizing debates, granting publicity to wingnuts & zealots, and elevating opinion to the same stature as facts. The MSM is not a tool of the left or the right, it's a tool to distract, and to keep Americans locked into a no-win battle of perceptions with each other.

As Thomas Pynchon said, if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

The fact is, none of us have the whole picture. We all have a lot to learn from each other. And we have to do it by leaving the wrong questions to wrongheaded people.

I'd like to suggest this article: Our Phony Economy [pdf] as essential reading for every US citizen. It helps spell out, in very clear language, how the social ills that concern left and right alike, such as divorce, abortion, disease, government waste, medicating our kids, privatizing our military and our prisons, depleting our resources, and many more, are actually tallied in the PLUS column when measuring the strength of the economy.

The simple fact is, we will not solve our domestic OR our foreign problems while powerful people are reaping obscene wealth by perpetuating them.

And I'd like to suggest more broadly that respecting our differences does not mean agreeing, but it is a necessary step toward seeing eye to eye. If we are open to seeing a broader view instead of pigeon-holing each other, we may have a chance of reforging our nation to be stronger, and wiser, than before.

Obama on the Economy - Raleigh, NC - June 09, 2008

2008-06-11T03:23:00.005-04:00

You were wondering about specifics? This is well worth a half hour of your time.

(Best double entendre: "For all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of [McCain's] economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies.")

American Stinkers

2008-06-11T01:31:00.013-04:00

Recently, while engaging in a little internet spelunking, I happened upon one of the enclaves of neocon "true believers": the ironically named American Thinker.

Because I am intrigued by such phenomena, I explored a bit. Its "About" page has this to say:

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.

Staff

Editor and publisher Thomas Lifson

News editor Ed Lasky

Chief political correspondent Richard Baehr

Chief investigative correspondent Clarice Feldman

Consulting editor J.R. Dunn

Seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, you might detect a hint of foreshadowing, in much the same way that you can smell bat guano before you enter a cave, but that doesn't mean the bats have rabies, does it?

Think again. While some of the articles are well-written, and even raise good points, most of them are mere propaganda and the overarching philosophy they espouse is as regressive as theocracy.

But, if you have the ability to look askance at it, this can occasionally provide some entertainment.

Take, for example, this article: Barack Obama has Women Troubles.

This was clearly an opinion piece, tailored to the well-established tastes of the readership, replete with wild-eyed speculation, loosely based on cherry-picked facts.

My favorite part was this:

Michelle [Obama] will take the art of interfering first spouse to a whole new unexplored level. This will be a lot more than just -- as Bill Clinton spoke of Hillary -- "two for the price of one."

Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what "it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids," Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.

Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny. Think of this famous prediction from Michelle:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that? Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids

And yes, she will have the power.

It was just funny on so many levels.

For starters, it's hilarious that the author (in conformity to the well-established tastes of the readership) would choose to deride the ideas of:

work
shedding cynicism
putting down divisions
coming out of isolation
moving out of one's comfort zone
pushing oneself to be better
engaging
being involved
being informed

But mostly, I howl with laughter whenever someone on the political right asks, "Where in the US Constitution does it give [insert Democrat's name] the power to do that?" while simultaneously believing that the current president deserves to occupy the Oval Office, considering that, when enacting new laws, he routinely writes signing statements that express his intent to ignore those laws whenever he sees fit.

Why don't we put on our American Thinker's caps and ponder that, hmmmmm?

The drugs I need

2008-06-05T13:37:00.008-04:00

♫ Big Pharma loves me, this I know,
For the TV tells me so. ♫

Don't forget: You're doing your patriotic duty when you help Big Pharma! Your treatable conditions are good for the economy!

Lose Your Illusions

2008-06-01T02:52:00.008-04:00

Questioning the "truths" in our programmed lives.

2008-05-31T22:35:00.008-04:00

How do you know when you're doing science wrong?

2008-05-29T15:54:00.008-04:00