Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Saturday, July 12, 2008

TOTALLY GAY HAPPY MEALS, By Mark Morford


I've been reading Mark for years and years and sending him emails telling him how much I love him. And he's actually written back. Heh. With his wit and wisdom, this man has pulled me through some of the darkest moments in the Bush years. Enjoy.


******************************************************

Hey, remember the angry evangelicals? The quivering clan of militant Christoholics who propelled Bush into office and seized the national narrative for a few terrifying moments about five years back, ran deep into the woods with it and rubbed it all over their naughty bits in a frenzy of fear and confusion and lust for all things homophobic and saccharine and spiritually denigrating?

Dying. Nearly dead. Gasping their last. Very soon to be a footnote, a caricature, a gag, a punch line, blasted to the dustbin of history like dried housefly limbs after a sneeze. You should know this now.

Yes, you are right; they already were a caricature, a cultural pothole, a nasty rash in the armpit of society. But it wasn't all that long ago that they were, through bizarre series of sociopolitical machinations still being parsed by baffled historians, a powerful rash, hugely newsworthy, as dangerous and unstoppable as they were wrongheaded and sad. Remember?

You were not much younger than you are right now. As the Bush era crested, as the neocons' power reached nuclear levels, when female nipples and f-words and evil gay agendas ruled the news, the evangelical Right -- led by the most virulent, spittle-flecked gaggle of mental throwbacks to ever stain the American newswires, Focus on the Family (Dr. James Dobson's clan) and the American Family Association and its nefarious leader, the Rev. Donald Wildmon -- these groups controlled, for a brief, awful moment, the national dialogue. They were the temporary arbiters of taste, the warped conscience of a freaked-out culture. And lo, it was ugly.

Rejoice, won't you? For their time is over.

Did you know the AFA recently boycotted McDonald's? That's right, this once semi-powerful tub of right-wing brain-caulk recently declared a comestible fatwa against America's foremost purveyor of toxic foodstuffs because, apparently, some high-ranking McD's VP just joined the board of directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, which, to the AFA, somehow translates directly into free pink condoms and mind-controlling rainbow flags in every toxic God-fearing Happy Meal.

Did you read about that? No? Of course you didn't. Here is why: No one cared. Well, that's not quite true. McDonald's sort of cared, just enough to write up a nice letter of response to Wildmon stating, in essence, that the AFA is a bunch of troglodytic knuckle-draggers with the sociosexual awareness of a fungal spore, and they should crawl away right now before God spanks them even harder with the 2x4 of total irrelevance.

I might be exaggerating. What they actually said was: Thank you, AFA, for your hateful consideration, but we support our employees' right to join whichever socially responsible and positive groups they like. And thusly did McD's flick the AFA away like a tick from a dog. Isn't that amazing?

Now, you may argue that McDonald's and the other megacorps that the AFA has tried to boycott in the past, including Wal-Mart (for selling "Brokeback Mountain" DVDs to unsuspecting toddlers), the Disney Corporation (for its overall corporate support of the evil gay agenda) and the Ford Motor Company (for advertising in gay magazines), aren't shrugging off Wildmon's wide-eyed cult out of the goodness of their gay-loving hearts. It's not like the majority of McD's honchos actually give a damn about gay rights, or gay marriage, or social justice, or the deeper aspects of love.

Nossir, they do so purely for economic reasons, because it's just good PR, because they are safe in the knowledge that the AFA's rantings have exactly zero effect on their bottom line and lots of their own employees are gay -- and by the way discrimination based on sexual orientation is thoroughly illegal -- and therefore it simply makes more business sense to support tolerance than it does to endorse homophobia and general spiritual stupidity. Isn't that right, Boy Scouts of America? You bet it is.

But wait just a second: Is it still not fascinating in this day and age that our most powerful capitalist companies, those most associated with mainstream, dumbed-down, unhealthy, rather uninformed Republican Americana, even these megacorps are now openly and rather shamelessly supporting gay rights and tolerance?

Is it not, concomitantly, interesting that no one at all cares a whit for what the hell the AFA has to say anymore? Is this not a sign of something interesting and sea-changing and good? I think it is. McD's, Wal-Mart, Ford and Disney utterly ignore the Christian Right? What's next, an articulate black intellectual president? Oh wait.

It is made all the more amusing, more comical and cute, by another recent tidbit, the final evidence you will need that the evangelical Right has returned to its original state of inbred silliness, and therefore it is very likely indeed that you will never have to read anything more about them ever again until Wildmon and Dobson join Jerry Falwell and Jesse Helms in the Great Gay Bath House in the sky.

It is this: The AFA's Web site apparently has (or rather, had, until just recently) an auto-filter installed. So utterly terrified of anything remotely gay are these kindly folk that whenever the word "gay" appeared in any news story on their site, their autobot automatically changed it to "homosexual." True.

Thus did it come to pass that many fine stories about American Olympic track and fieldster Tyson Gay become a whole lotta wacky stories about the epic struggles of some unlucky runner named "Tyson Homosexual" to post some good numbers in the 100-meter dash. Poor guy.

And that about does it. Your final proof that God laughs and snorts and doesn't give a flying McRib sandwich about any particular gaggle of humans, particularly those who profess that they know and love and worship him more violently and blindly than anyone else.

Somewhere in all this, a moral, a lesson. Perhaps a curious anecdote about how, in this country, it seems like every agenda, every stupid idea, every rancid fireball of ignorant religious fanaticism nevertheless gets its moment, its 15 minutes, its desperate shot at guiding the culture, just to see if it can, if there's something of value, if there's something to be learned.

And when it comes to the sad Christian nutballs, well, the lesson appears to be wildly obvious indeed: Avoid the sad Christian nutballs, now and forevermore. Hell, even God could've told you that.

Friday, July 11, 2008

FRED BARNS OF FOX SAYS, YEP, WERE IN AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, AND YEP, AMERICANS ARE WHINERS!

All-Star” and Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes wholeheartedly endorsed Gramm’s assessment, saying he was giving “straight talk” and that “America has become a nation of whiners.”

But Barnes took Gramm one step further, acknowledging the economy is “weak,” but that Americans are “whining all the way through it”:


BARNES: He wasn’t wrong to say that. You know what this was? This was straight talk that McCain always says he’s giving it, and this is exactly what Phil Gramm did. He gave straight talk…They claim about how bad the economy is–and it’s weak, no question about that. …They’re whining all the way through it.
Watch it:


Sadly, Barnes wasn’t the first Fox News personality to defend Gramm’s comments yesterday. And this isn’t the first time Barnes has shown a complete lack of understanding of the world outside his high society.



During Fox News’s Democratic primary coverage earlier this year, Barnes described “working class” voters as a euphemism because “it’s kind of mean to say ‘lower class.’ It’s as simple as that.” He explained that the “lower class” are people of low “social class.”

Source: http://thinkprogress.org/

Let's see. When Obama talked about "bitter" working class people the Republican Noise Machine went ballistic--and labeled Obama "elitist."

When one of their own says something actually demeaning--Obama didn't demean anyone--it's no big deal.

These people continue to give new meaning to the word hypocrisy every day.

Jimmy Carter talked about American "malaise" during the fuel crises in the late '70s. Barnes says, yep, we're having a difficult economic time--Americans are WHINERS!!!

Jimmy Carter=BAD, Fred Barns, Phil Gramm=GOOD

Obama says during difficult economic times people become bitter and cling to religion and guns.

Fred Barns calls those same people LOW CLASS. Fred Barns is a big time Repubican who weighs in on lots of issues. The big time Republicans respect this hypocrite.

I can understand why.

MC CAIN'S ECONOMIC ADVISER, PHIL GRAMM, SAYS AMERICANS ARE WHINERS, THAT WHAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING IS A "MENTAL RECESSION."

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

NEW JERSEY GOP SCRUBS RACIST ANTI-OBAMA "JOKE" FROM SITE

The graphic, "Obama loves America like OJ loved Nicole" was posted on a New Jersey GOP site since June 24, until it was caught by a Burlington County Democratic chairman. It's been scrubbed just recently. See here:


The Goopers accused Senator Obama of using the race card when he warned that they would try to scare voters by reminding them that he's black--or falsely saying he is Muslim.

Of course, Senator Obama has been correct--we've seen instances of the various GOP state, county and other organizations [noted on this blog here, here, and and here] where they've used the most insidious racist language and images to demean him.

The GOP needs to get these troglodytes under control. How embarrassing for that party to have so many racist pigs who support them and their policies.

MC CAIN'S "JOKE"

McCain: Sending Cigarettes to Iran One Way to Kill Them

By E&P Staff Published: July 08, 2008 11:20 PM ET

NEW YORK John McCain on Tuesday reacted to am Associated Press report of rising U.S. cigarette exports to Iran by saying that may be "a way of killing 'em."Although most in the media later portrayed this as a mere jest, Time magazine's Karen Tumulty, who was at the meeting with the press, observed that McCain only said he was joking after his wife nudged him.


The Reuters report noted: "McCain, known for acerbic comments and for sometimes firing verbally from the hip, was responding to a report that U.S. exports to Iran rose tenfold during President George W. Bush's term in office despite hostility between the two states.

A rise in cigarette sales was a big part of that, according to an Associated Press analysis of seven years of U.S. trade figures."'Maybe that's a way of killing 'em,' McCain said to reporters during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. 'I meant that as a joke, as a person who hasn't had a cigarette in 28 years, 29 years,' he added, laughing."McCain once sang "Bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of the old Beach Boys classic, "Barbara Ann."


This joker wants to be president of the United States. There is so much that is wrong with what he said as well as the fact that he was very comfortable--even gleeful--in saying it.

We've already had one non-statesman and national embarrassment in the White House for almost 8 years. Who in their right mind would want this guy? What a sorry example of wise-guy, trigger-happy, kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out, juvenile idiocy.

Iran is a nation of 80 million people--more than twice the population of Iraq--and now, thanks to the inept Bush administration, Iran and Iraq share the same religion. A gift to the Iranian mullahs from George W. Bush.

Anyone joking about "killing them" needs some serious instruction on foreign policy.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

JESSE HELMS: CONSERVATIVE HERO

UPDATE:

North Carolina state employee forced to retire for refusing to honor Jesse Helms.


L.F. Eason, a 29-year veteran of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture, “instructed his staff at a small Raleigh lab not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff Monday” to honor the late senator Jesse Helms, “as called for in a directive to all state agencies by Gov. Mike Easley.” In a string of e-mail messages with his superiors, Eason was told he could either lower the flags or retire effective immediately. Here is Eason’s reasoning for his decision to retire:
This is in no way a political decision. I simply do not feel it is appropriate to honor a person whose epitaph of government service was to have voted against or blocked every civil rights issue that came before the US Congress. His doctrine of negativity, hate, and prejudice cost North Carolina and our Nation much that we may never regain.


GOOD FOR YOU, MR. EASON!
********************************************************************************

Over at the National Review – Mark Levin declares that the late Jesse Helms championed the causes of abused minorities. More praise came from President Bush:

“Jesse Helms was a kind, decent, and humble man and a passionate defender of what he called the Miracle of America.”


Conservatives are saying that Helms is a brilliant exemplar of the American conservative movement. This is the man they are tripping over themselves to praise on the news of his death:

Media Downplay Bigotry of Jesse Helms 8/31/01:

Washington Post columnist David Broder, whose August 29 column, headlined "Jesse Helms, White Racist," offered a glimpse into the public record that many other reporters were side-stepping. Broder offered a few examples of Helms' bigotry. There are many. As an aide to the 1950 Senate campaign of North Carolina Republican candidate Willis Smith, Helms reportedly helped create attack ads against Smith's opponent, including one which read: "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."


Another ad featured photographs Helms himself had doctored to illustrate the allegation that Graham's wife had danced with a black man. (The News and Observer, 8/26/01; The New Republic, 6/19/95; The Observer, 5/5/96; Hard Right: The Rise of Jesse Helms, by Ernest B. Furgurson, Norton, 1986)


Ancient history? No. Helms remains unapologetic to this day. Forty years after the Smith campaign, Helms would win election against black opponent Harvey Gantt with another ad playing to racist white fear-- the so-called "white hands" ad, in which a white man's hands crumple a rejected job application while a voiceover intones, "You needed that job…but they had to give it to a minority."


In columns, commentaries and pronouncements from the Senate floor, Helms sowed hatred and called names: The University of North Carolina was "the University of Negroes and Communists." (Capital Times, 11/22/94) Black civil rights activists were "Communists and sex perverts." (Copley News Service, 8/23/01) Of civil rights protests Helms wrote, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." (WRAL-TV commentary, 1963) He also wrote, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (New York Times, 2/8/81)


Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality "degenerate," and homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)


And the man ABC News now describes as a "conservative icon" (8/22/01) in 1993 sang "Dixie" in an elevator to Carol Moseley-Braun, the first African-American woman elected to the Senate, bragging, "I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing Dixie until she cries." (Chicago Sun-Times, 8/5/93)


More recently, when a caller to CNN's Larry King Live show praised guest Jesse Helms for "everything you've done to help keep down the niggers," Helms' response was to salute the camera and say, "Well, thank you, I think." (Wilmington Star-News, 9/16/95)


Finally, Helms' strong if sometimes shadowy support for violent, anti-democratic forces abroad, from South Africa to El Salvador, might have given media outlets further pause in describing him as a mere conservative; few probed his ties to groups that would more accurately be described as fascist.


One exception was an editorial in the Boston Globe (8/23/01): "Helms' role in supporting foreign thugs such as Roberto D'Aubuisson, the cashiered Salvadoran major who ran death squads responsible for savage political murders, did lasting harm to America's good name. In South Africa, Argentina, Mozambique, Honduras, and Nicaragua, Helms cooperated with racists and fascists who have nothing in common with the ideals of American democracy."

Source:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1871

Sunday, July 6, 2008

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Part III--Thanks, Dubya!


In a 1998 interview, Osama bin Laden — the terrorist organizer of 9/11 who still roams free — listed as one of his many grievances against the U.S. that Americans “have stolen $36 trillion from Muslims” by purchasing oil from Persian Gulf countries at low prices. The real price of a barrel of oil should be $144, bin Laden demanded.


Ten years ago today, the price of a barrel of oil was just $11. Heading into this holiday weekend, the price of a barrel of oil rested at $144 — a thirteen-fold increase.


One month after 9/11, the New York Times wrote of possible “nightmare” scenarios that would deliver bin Laden’s goal. Neela Banerjee warned that among the “misguided decisions” that would put oil supplies at risk would be “that the United States attacks Iraq.” The Times included this quote in its story:


“If bin Laden takes over and becomes king of Saudi Arabia, he’d turn off the tap,” said Roger Diwan, a managing director of the Petroleum Finance Company, a consulting firm in Washington.


“He said at one point that he wants oil to be $144 a barrel” — about six times what it sells for now.


Bin Laden didn’t have to become king of Saudi Arabia to achieve his goal; in fact, Bush’s policies delivered it for him. The Bush administration’s catastrophic decision to invade Iraq, sink the nation into debt to pay for that war, and consequently, weaken the dollar have all caused oil prices to soar astronomically.


Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last May, Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, reminded Congress about bin Laden’s goal:
[A]bout ten years ago, Osama bin Laden stated that his target price for oil is $144 a barrel and that the American people, who allegedly robbed the Muslim people of their oil, owe each Muslim man, woman, and child $30,000 in back payments. At the time, $144 a barrel seemed farfetched to most. […]


I would like to impress upon this Committee that $144 a barrel oil will be perceived as a victory for the Jihadist movement and a reaffirmation that the economic warfare component of its campaign against the West is a resounding success. There is no need to elaborate on the implications of such a victory in terms of loss of U.S. prestige and our ability to prevail in the Long War of the 21st century.


Indeed, ten years later, a mission accomplished for bin Laden.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Part II, British and US companies win Iraq oil contracts

Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
The 'IoS' today reveals a draft for a new law that would give Western oil companies a massive share in the third largest reserves in the world. To the victors, the oil? That is how some experts view this unprecedented arrangement with a major Middle East oil producer that guarantees investors huge profits for the next 30 years.

Sunday, 7 January 2007

So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.


And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.


Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

[snip]

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."


Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war.

"The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.



Read the rest here:

THE SCHITZOID REPUBLICANS

1996: Bob Dole is a war hero!
Clinton is a draft dodger! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!



2000: Forget the war! Ignore the potential Vietnam-era AWOL-ness of our candidate, and his complete lack of foreign policy knowledge! He's got integrity!




2004: So what your candidate actually fought and was injured in the same war during which our candidate was so very much NOT AWOL! We mock his service and question the legitimacy of his injuries! Have a purple band-aid to wear at our convention!




2008: Only a certified war hero can lead this country! WORSHIP THE WAR HERO!


h/t TPM http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

What did General Wesley Clark actually say?:

On Sunday, Clark said on CBS that McCain had never held “executive responsibility” or commanded a squadron during wartime.


Asked about the fact that McCain was shot down in Vietnam and held as a prisoner of war for five years, Clark replied: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”


That is NOT an attack on McCain's military service or heroism. It's a statement on his qualifications. Period.

And then there's this from "Think Progress:"


- During an interview with National Journal, John McCain was asked if “military service inherently makes somebody better equipped to be commander-in-chief.” McCain said, “Absolutely not…I absolutely don’t believe that it’s necessary.” [National Journal, 2/15/2003]

- I believe that military service is the most honorable endeavor an American may undertake. But I’ve never believed that lack of military service disqualifies one from occupying positions of political leadership or as Commander and Chief. In America, the people are sovereign, and they decide who is and is not qualified to lead us. [American Legion Speech, 9/7/1999]


- Earlier this year at Washington’s Gridiron Club, where humor is the required fare, McCain lay bare what underlies his candidacy. Wearing a jacket outlandishly festooned with dozens of fake military medals, McCain said, “The question I ask myself every morning while shaving in front of the mirror is: OK, John, you’re an incredible war hero, an inspiration to all Americans. But what qualifies you to be president of the United States?” [Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/7/1999]

Again, I'd like to remind the GOPers that they weren't so sensitive when their attack dogs questioned the LOYALTY of Max Clelland, a triple-amputee who served his country in Viet Nam and when their attack dogs mocked John Kerry's service to his country. John Kerry volunteered to fight in Viet Nam; President Bunnypants chose not to go to Viet Nam, instead he was in the safe TANG, where his daddy got him a safe assignment.

Monday, June 30, 2008

THE AMERICA WE LOVE



The America We LoveBarack Obama

The America We Love Independence, Missouri

On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists - farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys - left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous - for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.

And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day - a shot heard round the world - the American Revolution, and America's experiment with democracy, began.

Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism - theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war - more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.

We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues - health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security - but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?

Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is - or is not - a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.

My concerns here aren't simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese Americans - all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.

In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today's patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s - in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself - by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day.

Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views - these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America's traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments - a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.

Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America's common spirit.

What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I'm not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I'm referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.
One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather's shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That's my idea of America.

I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton's Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That's my idea of America.

I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That's my idea of America.
As I got older, that gut instinct - that America is the greatest country on earth - would survive my growing awareness of our nation's imperfections: it's ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief - that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.

For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father's steadying hand, it is this essential American idea - that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will - that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.

That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America's ideals - ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.

I believe those who attack America's flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Of course, precisely because America isn't perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that's occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.

The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed - he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib - he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country's name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution - these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that - especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.

Beyond a loyalty to America's ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice - to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation - for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country - no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.
We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.

For the rest of us - for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military - the call to sacrifice for the country's greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.

In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.

I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.

We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.

As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker's rights.

It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one's community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.

And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.

When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation's long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.

Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They've defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.

Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature - he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.
And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: "When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task...But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone - that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support."

In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind - not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country - its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements - all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.

That is the liberty we defend - the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek - not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build - one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America's happy and singular creed.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Bernard Lewis: Ever Hear of Him? Read on...


Bernard Lewis. [Source: Princeton University]Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis published an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs called “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he advocates a policy he calls “Lebanonization.” He says, “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’


Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity.… Then state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.”


Lewis, a British Jew, is well known as a longtime supporter of the Israeli right wing. Since the 1950s, he has argued that the West and Islam have been engaged in a titanic “clash of civilizations” and that the US should take a hard line against all Arab countries.


Lewis is considered a highly influential figure to the neoconservative movement, and some neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Harold Rhode consider him a mentor. In 1996, Perle and others influenced by Lewis will write a paper for right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break” that advocates the “Lebanonization” of countries like Iraq and Syria (see July 8, 1996).


Lewis will remain influential after 9/11. For instance, he will have dinner with Vice President Cheney shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some will later suspect that Cheney and others were actually implementing Lewis’s idea by invading Iraq.


Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will say in May 2003, just after the invasion, “The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.”
[Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 330-337]



In a 2002 interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's "Hot Type" program, Noam Chomsky detailed a series of comments from a declassified Eisenhower Administration memo:


"President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I'm quoting now, "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people."
The National Security Council discussed that question and said, yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct. It ought to be correct. We ought to be supporting brutal and corrupt governments which prevent democracy and development because we want to control Middle East oil, and it's true that leads to a campaign of hatred against us.


Chomsky claimed that Bernard Lewis, in his writings on the Middle East, omitted this and other evidence of Western culpability for failures in the region. Chomsky claimed:


Lewis has been called "perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq", who urged regime change in Iraq to provide a jolt that — he argued — would "modernize the Middle East". [39]


Critics of Lewis have suggested that Lewis' allegedly 'Orientalist' theories about "What Went Wrong" in the Middle East, and other important works, formed the intellectual basis of the push towards war in Iraq.[40]


Lewis does not advocate imposing freedom and democracy on Islamic nations."There are things you can't impose. Freedom, for example. Or democracy. Democracy is a very strong medicine which has to be administered to the patient in small, gradually increasing doses. Otherwise, you risk killing the patient. In the main, the Muslims have to do it themselves."

Monday, June 23, 2008

HE SAID WHAT????

UPDATE BELOW


Fortune Magazine is running a profile on John McCain titled, "The Evolution of John McCain." McCain's chief advisor, Charlie Black, is interviewed in the piece. Below is a choice quote from Black on why he thinks another terrorist attack on US soil would help McCain win the presidency.

"On national security McCain wins. We saw how that might play out early in the campaign, when one good scare, one timely reminder of the chaos lurking in the world, probably saved McCain in New Hampshire, a state he had to win to save his candidacy" - this according to McCain's chief strategist, Charlie Black.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December was an "unfortunate event," says Black. "But his knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be Commander-in-Chief. And it helped us."

As would, Black concedes with startling candor after we raise the issue, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him," says Black.

Let me try to understand that comment. McCain's chief advisor thinks another terrorsit attack on America, where thousands more men, women, and children would die, would be "a big advantage to him" [McCain]?

Huh?

The idiocy contained in that proposition stuns me. I hope the guy continues to advise McCain.

PS. Mr. Black, besides that being a monsterous statement that borders on insanity--actually not "borders" but is most definitely insane, why would it be more advantageous for McCain--and Republicans?

We would look at the awful event and understand that the Republicans failed keep America secure not once, but TWICE!!! It would forever expose how weak the Republicans are on security, not enhance their position.

9/11 happened 9 months into George W. Bush's presidency. There's no refuting it. Should another attack occur, as Mr. Black seems to hope, we'd have to run from anything remotely Republican and see them as incompetent guardians of America's safety.

Are all the people advising McCain as stupid as Mr. Black?

Whew!

************************************************


MORE "HE SAID WHAT??????"

"One of the things I would do if I were president," McCain told a group of wealthy contributors, "would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit.'"

This from a guy who's supposed to have a lot of foreign policy expertise! The Shiites and the Sunnis have been at each other's throats for centuries, and McCain thinks talking tough will get them to stop. That's just the sort of reasoned, mature diplomacy and foreign policy sense that'll get the two religious factions to stop.

Just before the US invaded Iraq, John McCain stated that there was no emnity between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and that those who warned about how the two factions would begin to slaughter each other didn't know what they were talking about.

Foreign policy expertise.




Update:

In 2004, just three days before the presidential election, McCain argued that a recently-released video-tape by Osama bin Laden would prove “very helpful to President Bush”:

U.S. Sen. John McCain, campaigning in southwestern Connecticut on Saturday, said Osama bin Laden’s video message to Americans will likely energize President Bush’s re-election campaign.
“I think it’s very helpful to President Bush,” said McCain, R-Ariz., while stumping in Stamford for U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays. “It focuses America’s attention on the war on terrorism. I’m not sure if it was intentional or not, but I think it does have an effect.” [AP, 10/30/04]
In the 18-minute video, bin Laden declared that al Qaeda was still motivated to attack the United States again.

More recently, McCain indicated that the terrorist attack that killed Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto would help him politically, as CNN’s Dana Bash recounted on the Situation Room yesterday:

BASH: I was actually with Sen. McCain the very day that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. … He really did understand from that moment that this was something that he thought could help him in the race at that point to be the Republican nominee. In fact, at that event that very day I asked Sen. McCain if he thought it would help his political campaign and he said pretty much “Yes.” … So it’s not a secret that back then that Sen. McCain and his campaign thought it would help.

To be sure — unlike Black seemed to do — McCain in 2004 was not advocating a terrorist attack. Yet just like his trusted adviser, McCain — who claimed yesterday he “cannot imagine” why Black would say such a thing — has not hesitated to claim political advantage from acts of terror.

Source: Think Progress http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/24/flashback-mccain-terrorist/

REPUBLICAN TEE SHIRTS


I don't think the Democrats are selling these.


Wednesday, June 18, 2008

REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN PINS


While a number of speakers -- such as Railroad Commission chairman Michael Williams and Mike Huckabee -- have praised the advance of Barack Obama and what it means towards a colorblind society, at least one vendor hasn't gotten the message.

At the Texas Republican state convention, a booth hosted by Republicanmarket was selling a pin Saturday that says: If Obama is President will we still call it the White House.

There were other pins that weren't necessarily conveying the positive, inclusive, united front that has been portrayed during the convention. One said, "Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Deportation" and another, "I will hold my nose when I vote for McCain"


RIGHT WINGERS AND THEIR LIES, SMEARS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS

I often visit right wing blogs to read the nonsense they post about Barack Obama. These are just some of the hysterical subjects that a lot of them repeat from mass emails they receive:

Barack Obama is a Muslim
Michelle Obama is a bigot
Barack Obama is a Muslim
Michelle Obama is angry
Barack Obama has big ears
Michelle Obama wears purple
Barack Obama doesn't wear underwear
Michelle Obama eats kittens
Barack Obama speaks Italian
Michelle Obama smiles funny

Well, you get it. The wingnuts are up to their old, dirty tricks again. They're looking at the abyss, and the only thing they have going for them is lies, smears, and misrepresentations.

Yawn.

Thank goodness for Jon Stewart. He tackles this subject quite well and explains it all for us:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/17/jon-stewart-mocks-media-f_n_107539.html



And this from a recent interview with Senator Obama:

OBAMA: You know, what I believe is that God intervenes, but that his plans are a little too mysterious for me to grasp. And so what I try to do is, as best I can, be an instrument of His will. To act in what I think is accordance to the precepts of my faith.And, you know, if I'm acting in an ethical way, if I am working to make sure that I am applying what I consider to be a core value of Christianity, but also a core value of all great religions, and that is that I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper, then I will be doing my part to move his agenda forward.But what we do -- what I think we can do is to act in ways that are consummate with the values that we cherish.

How utterly RADICAL that statement is! I mean, it sounds like something a Christian would say.

The wingnuts, as I said, are looking at many years roaming in th desert in sack cloth and ashes, so I can understand their rage, actually, derangement.

The Obamas are strong enough and smart enough to overcome all the slimey lies and misrepresentations the right will throw at them. And, darn it! People (millions and millions and millions) like them!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=4101774&page=1

Friday, June 6, 2008

MORE FAUX NEWS IDIOCY

UPDATE:

The flood gates have opened. Senator Obama talked about racisim in this country, and I remember reading about how some Americans were offended, believing as they did that racism was behind us and that our fellow African-American citizens have attained much. It's true some progress has surely been made, but we are still a sickeningly racist country. And I'm not sure we'll ever change:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/06/congressional-black-caucus-foundation-receives-racist-obama-t-shirt-in-the-mail/


I am so discouraged.


***********************************************************

Not only are the people who work there morons, but apparently this thing called Hill is a racist anus opening.

"Fox News' E.D. Hill teased discussion of Obama dap: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab?"

Teasing a segment on the "gesture everyone seems to interpret differently," Fox News' E.D. Hill said: "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? ... We'll show you some interesting body communication and find out what it really says." In the ensuing discussion with a "body language expert," Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," but at no point did she explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."




"During the June 6 edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, host E.D. Hill teased an upcoming discussion by saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently." In the ensuing discussion with Janine Driver -- whom Hill introduced as "a body language expert" -- Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," adding that "people call it all sorts of things." Hill went on to ask Driver: "Let's start with the Barack and Michelle Obama, because that's what most people are writing about -- the fist thump. Is that sort of a signal that young people get?" At no point during the discussion did Hill explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."

Can it possibly get any stupider or cryptically racist than that?

Yes. It. Can. The jerks who work there will find more ways to work in more of the same during the next 5 months of campaigning.

I'll document it here as I get the alerts from Media Matters.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

WELL DONE, SENATOR OBAMA!

UPDATE:

The world reacts:

Indonesians were rooting for the man they consider to be a hometown hero. Obama lived in the predominantly Muslim nation from age 6 to 10 with his mother and Indonesian stepfather and was fondly remembered by former teachers and classmates."He was an average student, but very active," said Widianto Hendro Cahyono, 48, who was in the same third-grade class as Obama at SDN Menteng elementary school in Jakarta. "He would play ball during recess until he was dripping with sweat."I never imagined he would become a great man."

In Mexico City, hairdresser Susan Mendoza's eyes lit up when she learned Obama had clinched the nomination."Bush was for the elite. Obama is of the people," she said.

The German government's coordinator on U.S. relations, Karsten Voigt, said many Germans "find (Obama's) mixture of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy very attractive."

In an editorial, the Times newspaper of London said Obama's campaign "has rekindled America's faith in its prodigious powers of reinvention — and the world's admiration for America."



Sunday, June 1, 2008

THIS IS BARACK OBAMA'S PARTY NOW


MSNBC's Chuck Todd:


You know, there is a big thing we should be getting out of this party tonight, and that is the Democratic National Committee is not somehow controlled by the Clintons. Not by the Clinton campaign any more. We may have started this campaign believing that the Clinton campaign controlled, but this is Barack Obama's party now. He's already been winning the outside game, he now won the inside game. Yes it's true that Harold Ickes can threaten this stuff about the credentials, but Don Fowler really did signal today by being for the Michigan compromise that, "Guys, it's over."

Friday, May 30, 2008

DIGNITY


As of today, there are 234 more days left for our country to be humiliated by George W. Bush.


When he's not giving a head of state (Angela Merkel of Germany) a back noogie, he's joking about not being able to find the WMDs at a press corps dinner, or saying "Now watch this drive," after decrying terrorist bombings in Israel, or saying "Bring 'em on!" and thereby taunting our enemies to kill our troops, or the very worst, his stupid grandstanding stunt, (dreamed up, I'm sure, by Karl Rove,) that landed him on an aircraft carrier just few miles off the coast of San Diego, where he idiotically proclaimed that "...major combat operations in Iraq have ended"--five bloody years ago.


And now this. A chest bump to a cadet as he hands out diplomas to the graduates.


Can anyone imagine Dwight D. Eisenhower? Richard M. Nixon? Ronald W. Reagan? acting like a fratboy on such a dignified and solemn occasion?


But wait! He's got 234 more days to embarrass us. There's still time for more juvenile action.


Darwin help us all!

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

BIG DICK CHENEY, THE MAGIC MAN


McClellan has harsh words for many of his past colleagues.


He accuses former White House adviser Karl Rove of misleading him about his role in the CIA case.


He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as being deft at deflecting blame, and he calls Vice President Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints. – The Washington Post (5.28.08)

Scott McClellan, who was Bush's press secretary from 2003-2006, delivers a scathing critique of the administration in a 341-page book titled "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

He describes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as deft at deflecting blame and calls Vice President Dick Cheney "the magic man" who steered policy behind the scenes while leaving no fingerprints, The Washington Post reported.

McClellan, 40, who defended White House policy from his podium during press briefings, also writes that the Iraq war "was not necessary" and "was a serious strategic blunder," according to Politico.com.

"I still like and admire President Bush," McClellan writes in the book to be published next week.
"But he and his advisers confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war...

"In this regard, he was terribly ill-served by his top advisers, especially those involved directly in national security."

The former aide also blasts the White House staff over the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, saying they "spent most of the first week in a state of denial."

"One of the worst disasters in our nation's history became one of the biggest disasters in Bush's presidency," he writes.

"The perception of this catastrophe was made worse by previous decisions President Bush had made, including, first and foremost, the failure to be open and forthright on Iraq and rushing to war with inadequate planning and preparation for its aftermath."

McClellan's book is critical of Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser between 2001 and 2005 before becoming the chief US diplomat.

"No matter what went wrong, she was somehow able to keep her hands clean," he writes, according to the New York Times. "She knew how to adapt to potential trouble, dismiss brooding problems, and come out looking like a star.

He also accuses former senior Bush advisor Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, of deceiving him on their role in an explosive CIA leak scandal.

"Rove, Libby, and possibly Vice President Cheney allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie" that Rove and Libby were not involved in the leak of the name of former CIA operative Valerie Plame, McClellan writes.

Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in 2007 and sentenced to two and a half years in prison, but Bush commuted his sentence.
McClellan's book has raised eyebrows among Washington's pundits for its candor and critical tone.

Rove, now a commentator on Fox News, hit back at McClellan as a "little irresponsible" and "out of the loop" for suggesting that he was involved in the CIA leak affair.
Rove said that McClellan "should have spoken up" earlier if he had had moral qualms about actions or policies of the White House.

The former spokesman points to his own shortcomings in his book, writing: "I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be."

"As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided."

Monday, May 26, 2008

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

DULCE ET DECORUM EST


Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares2 we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest3 began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes10 and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.

--Wilfred Owen

Sunday, May 25, 2008

FOX NEWS: THE CHAMBER POT OF CABLE NEWS

Who watches this awful cable station? Who are the people who work for it? They are all beneath contempt. I'm posting this so that people can see what a truly fascist group of thugs they are.


SUPPOSE THEY GAVE A BUSH-MC CAIN FUNDRAISER AND NOBODY SHOWED?


Poor ticket sales, expected protests scuttle Bush-McCain fundraiser at Phoenix Convention Center

Phoenix Business Journal

Friday, May 23, 2008


A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.
Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the fundraiser inside.

Another source said there were concerns about the media covering the event.
Bush's Arizona fundraising effort for McCain is being moved to private residences in the Phoenix area. A White House official said the event was being moved because the McCain campaign prefers private fundraisers and it is Bush administration policy to have events in public venues open to the media. The White House official said to reconcile that the Tuesday event will be held at a private venue and not the Convention Center.

Convention Center personnel confirmed the event has been canceled at their venue.
Tickets to the event were to range from $1,000 to $25,000 for VIP treatment. Money was to go toward McCain's presidential bid and a number of Republican Party organs.
Anti-war protesters were planning to be out in force. President Bush's job approval rating stands at 31 percent, according to RealClearPolitics.com.


The McCain campaign referred questions on the fundraiser change to the White House press office.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

MC CAIN UNINFORMED ABOUT IRAN'S LEADERSHIP

It is embarrassing how little McCain knows about Iran. (Although he is an expert when it comes to joking about bombing it.)

Here's what McCain DOESN'T KNOW about Iran. And people think he has experience? Oy!

Joe Klein exposes McCain's ignorance on Iran

John McCain's clearly planning to run his general election campaign on a theme of foreign policy experience. That will, of course, include an aggressive posture toward those countries perceived as enemies of the U.S. But as Time's Joe Klein showed at a press conference on Tuesday, when it comes to Iran, one of the countries McCain has been most aggressive in speaking about, his knowledge base is limited.

McCain has been hitting Barack Obama hard recently over Obama's expressed willingness to meet with leaders of certain countries, including Iran. McCain has been trying especially to link Obama's posture to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a controversial figure for his extreme views on subjects like Israel and the Holocaust. But as Klein has pointed out before, a meeting with Iran's leaders wouldn't necessarily mean a meeting with Ahmadinejad, as he doesn't hold the real power when it comes to Iran's military, its nuclear research or its foreign policy.

At the press conference, Klein asked McCain about this. Here's the ensuing exchange.

Klein: [I've] checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never said -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know -- Ayatollah …

McCain: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

Klein: But if --

McCain: Maybe I'm mistaken.

Klien: Maybe you are, because --

McCain: Maybe. I don't think so though.

Klein: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad, since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

McCain: Oh I think -- Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country ... I mean, the fact is he's the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that's, uh, that's your right to do so. But I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they'd know. Or anyone who's well-versed in the issue.

Klein's point isn't really an original one. In his stellar debunking of much of the rhetoric coming from Iran hawks, Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria -- no raving lefty -- wrote, "When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected 'Supreme Leader,' Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button." And you can find similar information in a brief summary of Iran's foreign policy structure produced by the Council on Foreign Relations, which notes:

Ahmadinejad has some influence over foreign policy -- he appoints the cabinet and the head of the SNSC -- but power remains mostly in the hands of the SNSC and the Supreme Leader. "[Ahmadinejad] is a small piece of the puzzle and can be influential on the fringes, but certainly not [by] steering Iranian foreign or nuclear policy," [Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran analyst with the International Crisis Group] says.

Still, these inconvenient facts -- and the public exposure of McCain's ignorance on the subject -- are unlikely to change the minds of those taking a hard-line stance toward Iran. After all, one of the right's favorite experts on Islam, Bernard Lewis, wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal in 2006 warning that Ahmadinejad might have some sort of "cataclysmic" event planned for Aug. 22 of that year. Lewis' warning rested on the assumption that Ahmadinejad had the power to order such a thing. Obviously, nothing of the sort occurred.
― Alex Koppelman, Salon

Monday, May 19, 2008

75,000 for OBAMA!


Oregon newspapers reported that Senator Obama attracted the largest crowd for a presidential candidate in the history of the state.


Well done, Senator Obama!

And this:


Bush & RNC To Bail Out McCain, While Obama Speaks to 75,000

"As if the Republican prospects for the fall elections were not bad enough, it now seems the Republican Party has been asked to bail out John McCain's deficient fund raising. And what's more insulting, McCain and the Republicans intend to rely on George Bush, the most unpopular President since Richard Nixon, to put the squeeze on lobbyists to replenish their coffers."

h/t Scarecrow at FDL

Sunday, May 18, 2008

McCain vs. McCain, Part II

It truly is embarrassing to watch this confused, dishonest man change his mind, in a matter of MINUTES, on some things. WTF?

What kind of a president would HE make? I don't want to even imagine the chaos and confusion he would bring to his administration.

John McCain doesn't know the meaning of STRAIGHT TALK.

Again, in a word: EMBARRASSING.

McCain vs. McCain, Part I

Remember how the Rovian Republicans painted John Kerry as a flip-flopper? Remember?

My friends, this guy makes John Kerry look like a rank amateur. John McCain is an AWESOME flip-flopper.

He doesn't know what he believes in. Or maybe he believes whatever polls well at the time he says it.

Where are the media on this outrageous example of Crooked Talk.

THE GREAT DERANGEMENT

A REVELATORY AND DARKLY COMIC ADVENTURE THROUGH A NATION ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN—FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS TO THE BASES OF BAGHDAD TO THE APOCALYPTIC CHURCHES OF THE HEARTLAND

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi set out to describe the nature of George Bush’s America in the post-9/11 era and ended up vomiting demons in an evangelical church in Texas, riding the streets of Baghdad in an American convoy to nowhere, searching for phantom fighter jets in Congress, and falling into the rabbit hole of the 9/11 Truth Movement.Matt discovered in his travels across the country that the resilient blue state/red state narrative of American politics had become irrelevant.

A large and growing chunk of the American population was so turned off—or radicalized—by electoral chicanery, a spineless news media, and the increasingly blatant lies from our leaders (“they hate us for our freedom”) that they abandoned the political mainstream altogether. They joined what he calls The Great Derangement.Taibbi tells the story of this new American madness by inserting himself into four defining American subcultures: The Military, where he finds himself mired in the grotesque black comedy of the American occupation of Iraq; The System, where he follows the money-slicked path of legislation in Congress; The Resistance, where he doubles as chief public antagonist and undercover member of the passionately bonkers 9/11 Truth Movement; and The Church, where he infiltrates a politically influential apocalyptic mega-ministry in Texas and enters the lives of its desperate congregants. Together these four interwoven adventures paint a portrait of a nation dangerously out of touch with reality and desperately searching for answers in all the wrong places.Funny, smart, and a little bit heartbreaking, The Great Derangement is an audaciously reported, sobering, and illuminating portrait of America at the end of the Bush era.


About the Author
MATT TAIBBI is a roving national reporter for Rolling Stone and a columnist for rollingstone.com. He's the author of Spanking the Donkey, a collection of his writings about the 2004 election. He lives in New York City.



Thursday, May 15, 2008

THE FACE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Exhibit A on why the Republican Party is a laughing stock and why people are leaving it in droves. I give you Kevin James, conservative radio talking idiot:


UPDATE: Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, who is retiring, confessed that if his party "were dog food, they'd take us off the shelf and put us in a landfill."

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

REMARKABLE. ANOTHER WIN FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN REPUBLICAN TERRITORY!

This is the same district where Dick Cheney campaigned to help boost Greg Davis' chances to win. It didn't help.

That makes three very significant elections where Democrats have won in districts that went heavily in favor of Bush in 2004.


Democrat Wins House Seat in Mississippi

By ADAM NOSSITER
Published: May 14, 2008

COFFEEVILLE, Miss. — Democrats scored a remarkable upset victory on Tuesday in a special Congressional election in this conservative Southern district, sending a clear signal of national problems ahead for Republicans in the fall.


The Democrat, Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.

The seat had been in Republican hands since 1995, and the district, largely rural and stretching across the northern top of Mississippi, had been considered one of the safest in the country for President Bush’s party, as he won here with 62 percent of the vote in 2004.

********************************

A fairly remarkable statement from the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Tom Cole, about tonight's special election in Mississippi. He's warning his incumbents and challengers: change or die.

“We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC
and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up
short.

“Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must
overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against
Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join
a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult
in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election
victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all
Republicans.

“Second, the political environment is such that voters remain
pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in
general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward
looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for.
This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but
time is short.

“I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers,
to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging
campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks
that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn
out voters this election.”