He is an embarrassment to all the bloggers whether right or left or undecided. His use of the N word violates the new more friendly racial tone of our country.
I am deeply offended by his attempt to stir up racial discord.
All my life I have supported equal rights for black Americans in our country. All my life I have been uncomfortable with the way non blacks treated the people of color. My first experience with the black community was picking cotton with my family near Atoka, Oklahlma.(sic) The field next to us was filled with black people from white haired Seniors down to 4 year olds moving down the rows. I asked my Daddy why those dark Indians were not allowed to pick in the field with us. It is because they are N...... and cannot be around white people. Daddy was wrong and Kitten Stomper is worse than he was.
Although the fried green one did not provide a link, I am guessing he was referring to this post. Of course as any literate person can clearly see, all the racist terms in that post were quotes from Republican/conservatives. I find it rather odd to be called "an embarrassment to all the bloggers whether right or left or undecided," by a blogger that cannot correctly spell the state he calls home. We should not set aside his claim of being "deeply offended" by my "attempt to stir up racial discord."
That's his job, and he works hard at it too with posts like Islamic Marxism...is this the real religion of ObamaNation. He just copies and pastes a Wikipedia article and adds at the bottom, "Perhaps someday scholars will add Baraka Hussien Obama, Junior to this list!"
Not everyone will agree with the policies of Senator Obama, but this kind of attack, making the candidate out to be "the other" one to be feared, merely by childish, baseless fearmongering is the type of thing I was pointing out in my previous post, and the blogger at Fried Green Onions is the exact type of person I was talking about.
One only wonders if Fried Green Onions is "uncomfortable" with the way he treats "the people of color."
I am deeply concerned that John McCain has selected as his running mate someone closely affiliated with a separatist group who has their own National Anthem and does not fly the flag of the United States. This is not a small matter like choosing to wear a lapel pin or not. If someone chooses to belong to a radical separatist group or march in peace rallies is of little concern to me, but when a Presidential nominee chooses his Vice President that is associated with an group who is anti-American at their core, it is a matter of grave concern.
This matter cannot be shouted down as sexist or any other "attack the messenger" modus operandi generally employed by the right-wing. Any dissension about our invasion of Iraq has been met by "troop hater" and "un-American" by Bush apologists and have made careers out of trying to "out-patriot" those who disagree with their positions.
Their standard bearer is John McCain and his very first Presidential decision, indeed the ONLY Presidential decision a candidate can make, is the choice of his second in command who has questionable loyalties to this country.
John McCain cannot salvage this disaster. Even if Governor Palin resigns for "family reasons" it will remain a very black cloud on the judgement of John McCain.
Seems Pappy McCain is a one-trick pony. He answers all questions by bringing up his POW status. When he is criticized for not knowing how many homes he owns, he simply reminds people he remembered when he didn't have a home and was a guest of the Hanoi Hilton. When asked if Americans should get the same kind of health care a Senator gets he quips about the time he got health care from another government. One of his fellow prisoners wishes he would knock it off:
If he does take his fellow prisoners advice, I am assuming he will use his "Onion belt strategy."
Republicans are usually very clever using code words, dog whistles only rabid followers can understand, which is a trademark of the southern strategy.
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'
Westmoreland was discussing vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech with reporters outside the House chamber and was asked to compare her with Michelle Obama.
“Just from what little I’ve seen of her and Mr. Obama, Sen. Obama, they’re a member of an elitist-class individual that thinks that they’re uppity,” Westmoreland said.
Asked to clarify that he used the word “uppity,” Westmoreland said, “Uppity, yeah.”
He probably isn't even aware the word "uppity" is a racially charged term, and just because he feels Negroes should know their station in life does not make him a racist either.
The case for the next President is clear, Bush's approval ratings are similar to those of several social diseases and explosive diarrhea. John McCain offers more of the same. Senator Obama offers a vastly better choice, but their are a large percentage of Americans desperately searching for the slightest excuse not to vote for a black man. Any nail they can hang their racist cloaks on other than skin color will do. Muslim, patriotism, experience, radical wife/preacher, whatever. Truth does not matter. Hopefully enough Obama supporters will turn out on November 4 to overcome this. I believe he will be our next President, nevertheless, they will nuke him for his entire term(s) so we need to have his back.
The entire effort to stop Senator Obama from becoming first the Democratic nominee for President and now the next President of The United States has been his lack of experience. Senator Obama's defense is that experience is not a benefit if one lacks good judgment.
The result of this argument is Obama was able to prevail over the Clinton machine and secure his parties nomination while never falling behind the Republican contender, John McCain, R-POW, in any of the polls.
The selection of a Vice Presidential candidate is the only Presidential decision a candidate will make. In my opinion, his decision shows flawed judgment in the selection of Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. It stretches credibility that he looked to the Republican bench and deemed Governor Palin the best choice for second in command.
Senator Obama has addressed the issue of experience, or the perception that he lacks it, by being on the right side of the issues and demonstrating good judgment. His opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, during a time of hyperbolic war selling efforts by the neocons and the stenographic press, eager to earn the coveted "war correspondent" credential, showed great political courage and sound judgment.
Senator McCain would like to pretend the war in Iraq began with the surge, which of course it did not. He also likes to claim he was highly critical of Bush and Rumsfeld before the surge and demanded more troops. He did not. He supported Rumsfeld up until the day he was bounced and now wants to rewrite history. Our diligent press simply takes him at his word and pronounces him "the maverick."
I would like someone to show when and where McCain was "highly critical" of Rumsfeld and Bush, and "demanded" more troops. Please include links to actual articles and dates and stuff. I just don't think he is all that "mavericky."
Palin may be a good far-right wing Governor. She is extremely anti-choice, so much so that she believes rapists must live forever, and if some girl is raped by her dad she will be forced to give birth to her very own brother.
On the question of judgment, Senator McCain judged it better to pander to his lunatic fringe base than to select a first stringer from the party.
Ed Kelley's snotty editorial published on the Friday Obama made his trip to the Middle East, made the same old tired tropes we have been hearing for years:
TRY to imagine the conversation between Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. ground commander in Iraq, and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama when they meet in Baghdad this summer.
Obama plans some fact finding when he visits the combat zone. Why bother? This week Obama said he'll withdraw U.S. troops within 16 months, apparently with little regard for conditions on the ground or Petraeus' best military judgment. The puzzling sequence has a "Ready, fire, aim” quality to it.
Ed Kelley seems to be of the opinion that military commanders set policy in America, and Presidents or candidates are merely allowed to squabble over tactics. Even if the duly elected leader of Iraq agrees with the Obama"time horizon", a condition where John McCain said "we would have to leave," Ed Kelley Insists on calling this a "retreat from Iraq." Even the Pentagon is looking hard at the changing priorities between Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the Ed Kelley's of the world are stuck with cheer leading a colossal mistake. Admitting this error would show their complicity in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Like most Americans, I deeply disapprove of the direction America is going. Seems like the threads of old glory are slowly coming apart, and in the hyper partisan atmosphere today, everyone seems to be shouting past each other, and the only things that get done further deepens the hole we find ourselves in.
No, this is not a kubaya post asking that we all gather at the river.
It is, however, a call to establish some fundamental principles on what it is to be American. The first and foremost being that the law be applied equally to everybody. One cannot state that race or status is irrelevant before the court when we have Scooter Libby justice, torture described as a "policy difference" as being somehow a shield from justice, and telecommunication giants able to provide "bail money" in advance to purchase retroactive immunity.
It doesn't even matter which party is in control, as Glenn Greenwald explains:
Since that overwhelming Democratic victory[of 2006], this is what the Democratic-led Congress has done:
Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- Jim Webb's bill to increase the intervals between deployments for U.S. troops;
Defeated -- at the White House's insistence -- a bill to restore habeas corpus, which had been abolished by the Military Commissions Act, enacted before the 2006 election with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support;
Overwhelmingly approved the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman Resolution, to declare parts of the Iranian Government a "terrorist organization," an extremely belligerent resolution modeled after those which made "regime change" the official U.S. Government position towards Iraq;
Deleted from a pending bill -- at the direction of the House Democratic leadership and at the insistence of the White House -- a provision merely to require Congressional approval before the Bush administration can attack Iran;
Overwhelmingly enacted -- at the White House's insistence, and with substantial Democratic and virtually unanimous GOP support -- the "FISA Amendments Act of 2008," to vest the President with broad new warrantless eavesdropping powers and to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, all but putting an end to any chance for a real investigation and judicial adjudication of the Bush administration's illegal NSA spying program;
Stood by passively and impotently while Bush officials flagrantly ignored their Subpoenas and refused to comply with their investigations.
He goes on to point out that our elected officials, in particular the leaders of our elected parties no longer listen to the people who elect them. Lobbyists now firmly dictate the policies of America, and this short circuits the electoral process. Lobbyists do not have the best interest of America at heart, yet many powerful politicians only concern is who gets to sit in the big chair to hoover up massive political contributions. The system is utterly corrupt, and able to corrupt many well meaning public servants.
Which leaves many Americans angry and even disillusioned as they throw up their hands and give up. They do not vote out of protest or vote for a third party candidate to "send a message." Unfortunately, this type of approach only insures victory for the power-hungry politicians and their corporate benefactors.
The only process that has ever worked to substantially change the system is grass-roots activism. We cannot depend on "the press" to deliver cynical analysis of government actions, because they are corrupt as well. A premium is placed on access, and a reporter who gets too critical has no access. Media ownership has dwindled down to a handful of Corporations, many of whom have subsidiaries with business before congress. And so it goes.
This will be a long hard fight, to wrest control of our Government away from Corporations whose only loyalty is to maximize shareholder profit, many times which means at the cost of clean air or water, affordable health care, or now it seems, a roof over our heads. We are, by fiat, asked to bear the burdens of shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when we didn't benefit from the profits, not to whine about it or go mental due to a mess created by a $200 million lobbying effort named after Phil Gramm.
Corporate welfare must stop. Torture must stop. Spying on Americans without a warrant must stop.
Bloggers alone cannot do this. We have all called our representatives, flooded them with email and FAXes, and yet they continue an agenda of, as Glenn writes, "radicalism, extremism and lawlessness of the last seven years, presiding over an endlessly expanding Surveillance State and accompanying war-making machine, and the dismantling of numerous core Constitutional principles."
This will not be said in the press unless we say it, and since we rarely get invited, our message exposing these individuals, in there own districts, must be purchased. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emmanuel, and Nancy, "off the table" Pelosi must pay a price for allowing these practices to occur. They were voted in to make these changes and have failed miserably, choosing merely to maintain the status quo, hoping to simply switch the name plates around on the K-Street lobbying enterprise.
Just electing more Democrats will not solve the problem, it only further tightens the grip of the feckless leadership we currently have. Without a doubt, more Democrats will get elected to both the House and Senate, so it is absolutely critical to hold the current leadership accountable for being such miserable failures. Without some sort of penalty we are assured of more of the same type of behavior in the future.
The FISA specific fund, hastily cobbled together in the wake of Steny Hoyer's stealth campaign, meeting every demand from the Bush administration (quaintly called "negotiations" by the press) managed to gin up nearly $350,000 in just a few weeks. Ads have been running in several Blue-Dog Bush enabling districts on the radio and in newspapers, including robo-calls read by local well-respected clergy.
As the above-chronicled events demonstrate, all of these assaults on our core civil liberties and the rule of law are not Republican attacks with Democrats fighting against them. They are attacks launched by the political establishment against the citizenry, and they ought to be responded to as such. That's the core premise of the Accountability Now/Strange Bedfellows campaign we've launched -- that these battles have to be waged by an ideologically diverse group of citizens devoted to a defense of the Constitution and the rule of law against a political establishment which has proven it is hostile to those values.
Let's do our Representatives a favor by introducing them to the most important lobby that exists--the American people.
Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.
Actually, Fannie and Freddie can be allowed to fail. Their shareholders can eat shit, and they can be reconstituted as a wholesale federal entities. There are zero reasons that I can think of that we should have shareholder owned entities which "probably but not necessarily" are going to get a government bailout every time they need it.
Both short and long term we might think that having such creatures exist to be mortgage backstops is a good idea. I probably agree with that. But there is no reason for them to be publicly traded companies.
Anytime the idea comes up to raise the taxes on capital gains, the protectors of the investment class, Republicans, run around shrieking about taking money from risk takers and giving it to lay-abouts.
Clearly, our economic system is also part of our infrastructure and just as important as our highways and military to provide the well-being of this country. If the investor class is unwilling to provide adequate funding for the upkeep and regulation of this economic infrastructure, why should the rest of us have to bail them out, while the crooked big-wigs walk right out the front door with millions of dollars in bonuses?
Well, John McCain seems to be angry, which is usually spun to define him as even tempered. His surrogates are in hyper-drive trying to fog the fact that John McCain has endorsed every single Bush plan for the last seven years. His latest fact-free surrogate claims that:
John McCain stood up against George Bush and Don Rumsfeld in the prosecution of the Iraq war for many years. … To say that John McCain was aligned with President Bush on the prosecution of the war in Iraq is to change history.
Fortunately, here in the 21st century, we have recording devices that we can return to and check the record for facts. To wit:
“I think that Blix’s report will be fairly definitive. But Mr. Blix has made a lot of reports over the years, and I think the judgment made by the United States of America will — and the president of the United States — will prevail here.” [NBC, 2/12/03]
“I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission [in Iraq] was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.” [GOP Convention, 8/30/04]
“The fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [Meet the Press, 6/19/05]
MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you have confidence in the president and his national security team to lead the war at this stage? SEN. McCAIN: I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation. [Meet the Press, 8/20/06]
“I’m sticking with the president in this respect [on Iraq]. This is our last chance. The consequences of failure are catastrophic.” [CNN, 2/13/07]
“I am proud of this president’s strategy in Iraq.” [Receiving Bush’s endorsement, 2/13/08]
Senator McCain' explosive temper is an issue in his quest for the Presidency. I came across this video over at Castle Driftglass. In an interview with Staphocaucolis, one cannot help but be reminded of Herbert Lom, of Pink Panther fame.
At about the 1.40 mark, watch what happens to his left eye.
He recovers nicely by jumping to his success at being shot down and captured by the enemy during Vietnam. Of course, I would probably be twitchy myself, but it would not be a qualification for running for President.
His uncontrollable temper, however, should rule him out as President of the most powerful country on earth. One should listen to those who know him best:
[...] A July 5 NewsMax.com article quoted former Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, as saying, "I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues . . . He would disagree about something and then explode. It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that." ...
"People who disagree with him get the ‘f*** you,'" said former Rep. John LeBoutillier, a New York Republican who had an encounter with McCain when he was on a POW task force in the House.
"He had very few friends in the Senate," said former Sen. Smith, who dealt with McCain almost daily. "He has a lot of support around the country, but I don't think he has a lot of support from people who know him well."
...
[I]n his 2002 memoir, "Worth the Fighting For," McCain said, "I have a temper, to state the obvious, which I have tried to control with varying degrees of success because it does not always serve my interest or the public's."
[...]
Senator McCain has serious anger management issues that his colleagues refer to as "irrational behavior" in the extreme. Those who work closest with him, other Senators, tend not to support him, or even like him very much.
Indeed, in McCain's own words, his inability to control his explosive temper "does not always serve my interest or the public's."
This is indeed one area that should be of grave concern to Americans, if it were only possible for the corporate media to get over its fanboy crush over the POW double-talk express bandwagon long enough to expose this very serious character flaw.
As it stands now, McCain was a POW, he was tortured, and that is damn well all we need to know.
I sent a letter to the Obama campaign voicing my opposition to his capitulation to Bush over the FISA bill and asked if he would pledge now to investigate and criminally prosecute those found to have broken the law. In short, I asked for a fig leaf, giving him an opportunity to repair the damage his vote has done to America. He failed to answer my call, but instead sent this tepid response instead:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting us and sharing your strong feelings about this important issue. Please find a statement from Senator Obama below.
We appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Obama for America,
--- Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.
It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.
---------------------- Paid for by Obama for America
To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
This statement, coupled with your relentless assaults on Senator Clinton for voting in favor of the Iraq war, was in part, the reason you secured the Democratic nomination. With this accomplished, you completely reversed yourself and voted to kill a filibuster of the FISA legislation that contained retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies and then voted for such immunity.
How can this be interpreted as anything other than rank political triangulation driven from fear?
Fear you would lose the primary and fear the Republicans will say mean things about you in the general election.
One needn't worry about the latter, the Republicans shall say mean things about you in the general, that is a given, but this vote is a serious error, doubly so as you are a constitutional scholar and think you have the ability to redact the Fourth Amendment.
Let's unpack your email to me, piece by piece.
Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike,...
Please, do not sully my email in box with canards of National Security. According to the report for the 9/11 commission, our Government received 52 separate warnings of impending attack prior to 9/11, so to claim our abilities prior to your capitulation to George Bush were lacking lays blame of lack of intelligence at the wrong feet.
[...] while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders. [...]
The FISA bill you just voted on does not respect "the privacy and civil liberties of the American people", it does the opposite of that. All phone calls and emails into and out of America, whether an American is on the phone or not, is now subject to warrantless wiretapping. This FISA bill that you approve of not only legalizes past abuses but expands the authority of the President in warrantless eavesdropping.
[...] That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past. [...]
The FISA bill that you just voted on, and Bush so admires, expands the surveillance powers of the government and reduces the role of the FISA court. Since its inception over thirty years ago, the FISA court has approved over 19,000 warrants and denied only five. This law only allows the FISA court to approve of methods and does not require individual warrants for international calls, whether an American is on the line or not, or even a suspect. All calls into or out of America is now subject to a government dragnet.
I know you were opposed to granting retroactive amnesty in the past, not so much anymore though.
[...] After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. [...]
When every Republican in the House, except for one, and every Republican in the Senate (including Lieberman) votes for this issue, and enough Democrats (such as yourself) are peeled off to join them, how can this be a compromise? Joining with George Bush and the widely dejected Republican party to give them everything they want by making the "President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance " legal, is not a compromise, but a most corrupt capitulation and complete disregard for constitutional protections.
[...] It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. [...]
The Bush administration seized the power to break the law under the Unitary Executive theory, during War (on terror which shall never end) and used every dodge in the book to keep the judicial branch from ruling on this position. They failed. Three judges out of three judges all agree, the FISA law, as it stood before the FISA amendment, is the "exclusive means to conduct surveillance". FISA did not need to be "restored" as you claim. Going outside the FISA law is a felony, punishable by 5 years in Federal prison and a $10,000 fine for each offense.
[...] It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I voted in the Senate three times to remove this provision so that we could seek full accountability for past offenses. Unfortunately, these attempts were unsuccessful. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act. [...]
You also voted against a filibuster, Senator, after you explicity vowed to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." Pointing meekly to a provision that "guarantees" a part of the Executive branch to investigate another part of the Executive branch for "accountability going forward" while simultaneously granting immunity for past illegal acts and making such illegal acts legal going forward does not seem to meet my criteria for good legislation. As part of the "grass roots of Americans" I am not proud of this law and do not think it will pass constitutional muster.
In the final analysis Senator Obama, on this bill, the legislative branch has joined with the executive branch and gleefully took a saw to the third branch of government, the judicial branch. Our last hope of finding out what the Bush administration did, how heinous was his program, that caused the leadership of the Department of Justice threaten to resign as a result of his illegal spying activities, is now closed. For those who do not remember that episode, just watch this video:
That happened before Senator Obama's vote. This is what the result is of his current vote:
In the virtual shadow of Co-dependence Day, (the day after independence day) the Democrats of the Senate, having picked up sufficient pre-emptive bail money from the telecoms, are prepared to permanently establish a two-tiered justice system in America by granting the telecom companies retro-active amnesty for their flagrant criminal acts.
The money the Senators received is only a portion of the huge Government contracts the telecoms received for breaking the law. The Democrats, at the direction of Steny Hoyer, are doing this because in August the final provisions of the Orwellian named Protect America Act will lapse. August is when the Republican Convention occurs, and they are afraid that it will be used as a bludgeon to beat the Democratic nominee senseless with. To prevent that, the Democrats have capitulated on FISA and gave Mr. 29% everything he wanted.
Happy Co-Dependence Day!
Senator Obama folded on this issue like a cheap suit, and issued a statement on his website that has a group of eleventy skillion progressives opposed to his cave. The Senator offers his reasons for his waffle, which are wrong. Not in opinion or ideology, but factually wrong.
The Senator begins by addressing the immunity clause for the bill and claims he will "work" in an "effort" to strip the amendment from the legislation. He does not say he will oppose the bill unless the immunity clause is removed, so when that does not happen, which it will not, he will vote for a bill that grants immunity for criminals.
His second point is the "exclusivity" clause of the FISA legislation. Alberto Gonzales (aka Bertie Walnuts) and the Office Of Legal Counsel claimed that congress awarded unlimited power to the Executive branch when it authorized the war in Iraq. But three judges, out of, well, three judges, have already ruled that FISA, as it stand now, is the exclusive legal means for wiretaps for the Executive branch. One cannot receive what one already has, so this point is virtually meaningless.
His third point just flat out cracked me up:
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted.
The IG is part of the Executive branch. Loyal Bushies investigating loyal Bushies? Are you serious? They will probably all get medals.
FISA is a bad bill. It allows dragnets and if warrants are denied they can continue to wiretap through the appeals process, and if the warrant is ultimately denied they can still use all the collected recordings in court, no poisonous tree here.
I have been annoyed at several good progressive bloggers and leftwing radio hosts that wring their hands and head for the fainting sofa when anyone says anything negative about the Democratic nominee. We should all just STFU and support our candidate, after all, the only other option is four more years of Dubya McSame.
There is a group of blind loyalists who cling with total fealty to Dear Leader. Anyone who gainsays a single utterance of Commander Guy suffers from "derangement syndrome" or must be unpatriotic and yearns to give aide and comfort to the enemy.
That group is called Republicans.
I am not a Republican.
I am a citizen, not a subject. When an official of my party steps out of bounds, they are going to damn well hear about it. Unquestioning loyalty to a public official is not a good thing for a Democracy.
All my ire, and indeed the collective ire on the left, is not reserved for Senator Obama, in fact I doff my hat to him for posting his response. He will get my vote, but no money, or phone banking or any other activism whatsoever from me. The money I was going to give to Senator Obama will now go to the Blue America PAC vs Retroactive Immunity.
We are targeting Bush-dog democrats and power-hungry bail money whores like Steny Hoyer. I would rather give my money to well deserving progressive candidates and it is unfortunate that this has to be, but it is the only language the politicians understand.
I invite everyone who are tired of the fatcats in Washington gaming the system to help us push back as hard as we can.
UPDATE:
Read Our Blue America FISA ad here. Call your Senator.
Senator James Inhofe R-Oklahoma has voted against every bill that would support our troops. From Health care to body armor to more time between deployments, Inhofe has steadfastly backed the Bush vanity protection racket of chickenhawk neocons and turned his back on our troops.
He is already running ads on the teevee in Oklahoma, trying to define himself before the truth of his absolutely pitiful record reaches the people. Even staunch war opponents do not try and deny health care and body armor for our troops as Jim Inhofe has done.
It should not be overlooked that the war in Iraq played a huge role in the Democratic primary. One candidate voted for the war and the other opposed it. Senator Obama repeatedly pointed out his opposition to the war and should be noted his judgement played a key role in his victory.
Now, as the presumptive leader of the Democratic party, we would hope Senator Obama would step forward and deny any retro-active immunity for illegal Telecommunication wire-tapping by forcing the Democrats in line.
Also, as an opponent to the war, what does he plan to do with the architects of it, who are now benefiting from the right-wing welfare system?
CLARKE: Well, there may be some other kind of remedy. There may be some sort of truth and reconciliation commission process that’s been tried in other countries, South Africa, Salvador and what not, where if you come forward and admit that you were in error or admit that you lied, admit that you did something, then you’re forgiven. Otherwise, you are censured in some way.
Now, I just don’t think we can let these people back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just let them pretend that nothing ever happened when there are 4,000 Americans dead and 25,000 Americans grieviously wounded, and they’ll carry those wounds and suffer all the rest of their lives.
A lot of these characters were around with Nixon and Vietnam and some were involved with Iran-Contra. If Bush does not offer a blanket pardon for the whole sorry lot of them, they should be held accountable, since we know they'll be back.
Not since Gollum biting the ring from Frodo inside Mount Doom has such a lengthy, exhaustive and suspensful quest been concluded.
I have pretty much stayed out of the Democratic primary for purely agnostic reasons. I didn't even vote in the Oklahoma primary, since my guy, John Edwards, pulled out before the vote. I felt either candidate, Barack or Hillary, brought specific skill sets to benefit America and would be vastly superior over any of the Republican choices.
It was an inevitable reality that the conclusion of this primary would be bittersweet; a profound sense of loss would be commingled with the euphoria of victory. This was magnified by our Corporate media doing all they could to reign in an obvious Democratic juggernaut by constantly parroting charges of sexism and racism, often using these tactics themselves.
Now, the task of binding wounds and closing ranks must begin, and it will not be an easy thing. Many women voters are upset at Barack Obama, feeling he jumped his place in line--that it was Hillary's turn--and Obama stole the party's nomination from her. Consequently, it will be very difficult to win these votes, when they feel it was a woman's turn in the White House.
I find the notion of someone "taking votes" from someone else curious. Much like Ralph Nader in 2000. Votes do not belong to one candidate or the other, they belong to the voters who cast them. It is up to the campaign to identify and attract these votes.
Obama simply had a better campaign than Senator Clinton and a candidate must assemble a strong campaign.
Of course none of this allays the supreme bitterness felt by many women, including my own mother, who at this point cannot see herself voting for "that man."
I find myself struggling with my own prejudices against Senator Obama. I have never been presented with the option of voting for someone like him, and I am certain I am not alone in this situation. I am certain I will vote for Obama, but it is a struggle, because for the first time I will cast a vote for someone younger than me for President of The United States.
It was a shameful thing to ask men to suffer and die, to persevere through god-awful afflictions and heartache, to endure the dehumanizing experiences that are unavoidable in combat, for a cause that the country wouldn’t support over time and that our leaders so wrongly believed could be achieved at a smaller cost than our enemy was prepared to make us pay. No other national endeavor requires as much unshakable resolve as war. If the nation and the government lack that resolve, it is criminal to expect men in the field to carry it alone.
This was the forward to Halberstam's The Best And The Brightest written by Republican Presidential presumptive nominee, John McCain. As a blogger, I understand McCain's proclivity to flipping and flopping to politically pander. But our Beltway Insider Village Press Corps have dubbed the Senator from Arizona with the kewl name of Maverick.
Would it be too much to ask for some stenographer (aka reporter) to ask Mcthusala about these comments? Does he truly believe it is criminal to continue a war that lacks "unshakable resolve" especially in light of The New York Times story of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign, Scott McClellan's new book and the Senate findings that the Bush administration was deceptive in its use of intelligence presented to the American people prior to the war?
Is he also "shameful" and does he "wrongly believe?"
The media, that is. Part of Scotty McClellan's new book that is creating such a firestorm is his claim that the stenographic nature of todays media is partially responsible for the disaster that is named Iraq.
In a resounding harumph, our media elites respond by giving face time with an endless parade of critics turning Scotty into a pinata.
This is their chickenshit way of avoiding culpability for the death and destruction resulting from being mere publishers of Pentagon/Bush blast fax publishers. Two primary deniers of a meek and compliant press corps are Charlie Gibson and David Gregory.
Both use some version of SEP-- Somebody else's problem, or, not my job. Brian Williams tries to split the baby by claiming it was a cultural thing, in the aftermath of 9/11.
I think the questions were asked. I respectfully disagree with the gentle lady from the Columbia Broadcasting System [group giggles]. I think the questions were asked. . . . I can remember getting in trouble with administration officials for asking questions they didn't feel comfortable with.
It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. And it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions.
Indeed. If my interpretation of my job as a truck driver were so narrowly defined, it would be possible for more American deaths and mutilations to happen. Sorry for that analogy, Charlie, but I could not resist. People sometimes do not use turn signals, but I do not smugly squash entire families because "mind reader" is not in my job description.
On February 6, 2003 -- the day of Powell's speech -- Gibson had on as guests former CIA Director James Woolsey and Terence Taylor of the International Institute For Strategic Studies to analyze Powell's claims. Here are some of the super-tough, skeptical questions Gibson asked:
* Terence Taylor, let me start with you. Specifically, of all the biological and chemical weapons that he outlined, and the means of delivery, what's the most frightening? Should be the most frightening?
* Question number two that was in my mind. James Woolsey, he showed intercepts, he showed photo intelligence. He talked about human resources that we had. How much intelligence was compromised?
* On a scale of one to 10, one being the most sanitized of intelligence information and 10 being laying out all our intelligence ammunition, where was he yesterday on the scale?
* Terence Taylor, as I look at some of the pictures that we were talking about just a moment ago with James Woolsey, the pictures dramatic in that they show Iraqi trucks pulling away from sites virtually as the, as the inspectors trucks are pulling up. How compromised are the inspectors there? Are they totally infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence?
Here's how the segment ended:
CHARLES GIBSON
James Woolsey, the Iraqis immediately challenged a lot of what was shown, said it was altered, said it was doctored. The international community -- do they know that stuff was genuine?
JAMES WOOLSEY
Oh, anybody who is objective about this I think does. The people who now doubt whether or not Saddam really has WMD programs, chemical and bacteriological, in particular, are really of two types, either they work for Saddam or they're doing a human imitation of an ostrich. There really are, I think, no other possibilities.
CHARLES GIBSON
James Woolsey, former CIA Director, Terence Taylor, former weapons inspector, I thank you both.
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? According to Charlie Gibson, who digs in his heels and bristles at the idea of a codling lapdog press corps, these are the type of hard hitting questions that shine the light of truth on Governmental policy for the American public. Placing two Administration tool talking point pez dispensers on his show and asking if Americans should be more terrified of cooties or the sooper sekrit intell that cooties are stockpiled in Iraq.
David Gregory says the right questions were asked:
Not only that, but he completely rebukes any culpability by blaming everyone else, even going so far as blaming Bill Clinton, the apparent shield of choice for anything that goes wrong these days.
These guys would be funny if they were not so pathetic. They work in the field of mass communications, but it is as if they are completely unaware that there are recording devices. Here is an example of David Gregory asking the right questions before the war in Iraq.
Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don’t have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people, a government which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.
We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I mentioned in my opening comments that there’s a lot of food ready to go in. There’s something like 55,000 oil-for-food distribution points in Iraq. We know where they are. We fully intend to make sure that they’re — got ample food. We know where their hospitals are; we want to make sure they’ve got ample medical supplies. The life of the Iraqi citizen is going to dramatically improve.
Q Sir, I’m sorry, is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam Hussein, in your mind?
THE PRESIDENT: We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people.
Easy there Dave, try not to be so disagreeable with Bush. Not to worry though, if the Democrats retake the White House, you can bet we will once again have a confrontational and cynical press corps, dutifully rifling through the panty drawers and high school signature pages no matter what the approval rating is. I just don't know how to fix this.
When two people agree 100 percent of the time, it makes one of them irrelevant.
Since Bush shares approximately the same public approval rating as explosive diarrhea, it is difficult to envision a third Bush term without a meek and compliant media pushing the completely bogus image of the "Maverick McCain."
It is important to look past the rhetoric and view the record, and the Bush agenda and the McCain voting record are identical.
McCain voted Dubya's wishes 100 percent of the time this election year.
Sometimes nothing is more refreshing than a big dump, especially one that has been lodged in our national colon as long as Hans von Spakovsky. He is the modern-day face of voter suppression, and naturally, the Bush administration wanted to appoint him to the Federal Election Commission so "the math" of Karl would guarantee a permanent fascist majority.
He withdrew his name today from consideration. The fight to re-establish democracy in America won a battle today.
Left in his wake is the wide confusion between voter fraud and election fraud. One is virtually non-existent and the other is systemic. Guess where Hans spent his time.
For more on this rest ring of a turd blossom, read here, here, here, here and here.
It is good to stand on principle and win one once and awhile which would not have been possible if it were not for the internet. I would've never heard of this asshat. Digby pointed him out to me at first, but I couldn't find a search engine over at Hullabaloo, so I could not provide any links. Nevertheless, read Digby every day.
This clip is painful to watch simply because some rightard idiot yammers on incessantly about something he has some vague notion of as being bad, but does not know why, or how.
He is, like most low information rightards, merely a pez-dispenser of rightwing talking points seated in the Amen section of neoconservative Stepford nirvana.
Chris Matthews has been on the receiving end of much criticism (deservedly) from myself and others of the left, but in this instance I doff my hard hat to him.
Congressman Roy Blunt, R-MO, is in a fit of ginned-up mock outrage at the California Supreme Court allowing gay marriage.
He is so upset, he fired off a missive and posted it on his website so everyone would know how Supremely Upset he is.
See if you can see what is wrong with his missive, I've even highlighted certain parts to give clues as to what is wrong with the factually blighted congresscritter:
Blunt: California Supreme Court Overturns Will of the People 5.15.2008
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today condemning the overreach by California’s Supreme Court overturning the will of the people of California that voted in 2000 to define marriage as being between a man and a woman:
"Today, the decision of unelected judges to overturn the will of the people of California on the question of same-sex marriage demonstrates the lengths that unelected judges will go to substitute their own worldview for the wisdom of the American people. The Supreme Court of California chose today to legislate from the bench without any concern or deference for the democratic process.
"This ruling effectively opens the door to allowing the opinion of this state’s court on same-sex marriage to stand as the law of the land for the entire country. These California values are not the values of the majority of the American people – and the manner in which this decision was rendered is not consistent with the values of a democratic society."
-30-
The problem with the mantra of "unelected judges" with no "concern or deference for the democratic process," is that in the state of California, it is simply not true:
One Chief Justice and six associate justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms. Vote "Yes" to confirm each of the following justices; vote "No" to oppose confirmation.
Shouldn't the minority whip, or at least his staffers be aware of this? Perhaps to the knuckle dragging homophobic racists that are the only tattered remnants of the Republican Party, facts like these never reach to the shallow end of the gene pool. Even if it did, I seriously doubt it would matter, as long as one can proudly claim sufficient hate for queers, brown people and dirty fucking hippies.
It is important to point out at every opportunity how virtually identical they are, even as John McCain so desperately tries to creat space from Bush. The "straight talker" seems lately to be trying to distance himself from the congress and senate as well, even though he has been a member since 1983.
Sounds like it could be fun too. Hit the link above and sign up.
President* Bush stepped in front of the cameras yesterday to address the continuing economic crisis facing America. He bravely blamed congress 16 times in his opening statement alone.
This is rather odd, since he has spent his entire Presidency claiming the congress is virtually irrelevant. Only since his rubber-stampers were shown the door in the 2006 elections have the Republicans decided their new tactic, congressional constipation, is the way to go, so to speak.
In this era of the Bush Economic miracle, where we are reaping the benefits of his agenda and policies, the fault lies, according to him, with the congress.
I would encourage a member of congress to come forth and say they will admit being responsible if Bush will admit being irresponsible.
The neocon vision of unregulated capitalism and the denunciation of anything like universal health care and collective bargaining as socialism has been tried before.
Seems the hot headed John McCain, along with the Republican National Committee are outraged that the Democratic National Party would put the "straight talkers'" very own words in a commercial.
The primary defense of McCain and the RNC is his words are taken out of context, and lack the necessary Vulcan mind-meld required to divine his thinking, saying it is the casualties American soldiers suffer that, if eliminated, would allow American's to support a 100 year American presence in Iraq. The RNC and McCain point to the Korean model, Japan and Germany as evidence of such long-term American presence being endorsed by the American people.
So, now into our sixth year, is the McCain plan to continue an occupation where American soldiers are being killed until American casualties are eliminated? If that does not happen, do we stay until it does, and then begin with the Korean model?
If McCain becomes President, more Americans will die. He will Stay The Corpse.
Broder, third from right on evolutionary chart shown here, wants to know what Timmeh had for breakfast.
The Dean of the Washington Press Village, David S. Broder, cast his pearls of wisdom before the swine of ignorance:
[...] In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest. [...]
This, more clearly than anything else, represents the truest obstacle to the Democrats regaining the White House. Here is the Dean Broder himself telling both Obama and Clinton, if they want the White House, they will have to go through the entire corporate political press machinations, along with what they filter as credible and worthy. The noisy and smelly and wussyfied dirty fucking hippies shall not sully the good name of St. John McCain.
The Dean doesn't want Democrats coming in and "trashing the place, because it is not their place."
This is what he famously wrote during the Monica/Clenis period of the last Democrat elected to the White House. Bill was elected. He was wildly popular and the unelected Dean was disturbed by these "aromatic" Democrats trashing his place.
Now he is losing any and all remaining vestiges of credibility by pretending John McCain is a, "rare exception" who won't " sacrifice personal credibility" to blah, blah blah. Blather rinse, repeat.
Remember, Dean is a leading stenographer for Rove, Dubya, and Corporate America. He is also the current President of the Village Voice--all political corespondents look to Broder to see how to act.
Broder is clearly off the reservation and entered the realm of advocacy. No one has ever flipped and flopped more and quicker than John McCain. For Broder to refuse to see this deems his commentary myopic and more than a little biased.
I shit on him from a great height.
If the corporate media insist on shilling for republicans and roadblocking for democrats, requiring us in the lefty blogosphere to point out how consistently stupid they are, well, we can do that. It will hurt when we do, assholes.
...at least according to a "poll" cited by Scott Carter, a political reporter for the Moore American and the Norman Transcript. He does an adequate job of allowing Oklahoma City based Democratic political consultant Don Hoover to call bullshit:
“Those kinds of Web surveys don’t count for much,” he said. “People are doing them because they are motivated one way or another. There’s not a chance of a random possibility.”
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
If they were aware of it, would they be more likely, or less likely to elect such a seriously disturbed misogynist for President?
Cliff Schecter, a veteran campaign strategist and political commentator describes this incident, along with many other temper outbursts in his book, The Real McCain. In short, McCain has anger management issues and anyone that twitchy is far too dangerous to sit in the big chair.
Polls are somewhat important, but meaningless ones, not at all, as is bowling scores, cackling and cleavage. The mental stability of the Republican nominee for President is a very real concern. Is he getting help for his problem, medically or otherwise? If not, why not? Should reporters be asking these questions, or be steno graphing worthless "If you love me, check here" webpolls?
A media constructed reality is an actual term taught in colleges across the nation to those seeking credits in a particular field of study. So, those journalists who actively participate in the practice of a constructed mediated reality know exactly what they are doing. But to the average hardworking American, who rely on journalists to be just as diligent in their jobs, may not be aware of this practice.
Imagine prisoners, who have been chained since their childhood deep inside a cave: not only are their limbs immobilized by the chains; their heads are chained in one direction as well so that their gaze is fixed on a wall.Behind the prisoners is an enormous fire, and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised walkway, along which puppets of various animals, plants, and other things are moved along. The puppets cast shadows on the wall, and the prisoners watch these shadows. When one of the puppet-carriers speaks, an echo against the wall causes the prisoners to believe that the words come from the shadows. The prisoners engage in what appears to us to be a game: naming the shapes as they come by. This, however, is the only reality that they know, even though they are seeing merely shadows of objects. They are thus conditioned to judge the quality of one another by their skill in quickly naming the shapes and dislike those who play poorly.
This drawing is highly simplified and should only be used as an aid for grasping the picture the allegory creates; it does not represent the entire allegory.
For my point, the "cave" is our own livingroom, and the media constructed reality are the shadows cast on the television set, by order of the media. The sounds coming from those shadows are carefully selected, in order to create the desired reality.
Case in point is John McCain. Two things have been tattooed into our national psyche about the Senator; he is a "Maverick" and a "Straight Talker."
Who decided this? It is one thing for a Howard Stern, an entertainer and radio bigmouth, to declare himself "The King Of All Media" long enough and frequent enough for the media to simply shrug their shoulders and declare it a part of his motto, but it is entirely different for a public servant to get such deferential treatment.
Sometimes, one who is outside the cave, sneaks in to ask a question with hilarious results:
John McCain's history is rife with flip-flops and outright pandering. Without a doubt, no Democratic contender could get away with changing positions as many times as John McCain. His primary credentials seem to be his "war record" during our time of war. He crashed up five planes and logged less than eleven hours over Vietnam before inevitably getting shot down, breaking his arms and leg while ejecting. This somehow gives him the moral authority to persuade Americans to fight in Iraq for another hundred years.
He said it would be easy. Then gently suggested to Americans it was not and chided the naysayers in congress who didn't understand what they were voting for by authorizing the war. Certainly people can change their minds, given time and information, but John McCain can do it in eleven minutes.
This is not "straight talk" but double talk, so much so John McCain needs five sets of teeth. No matter what you believe in, Senator McCain agrees with you, or has at some time in the last couple of years.
But, as dangerous as a politician is, who will say and do absolutely anything to win, it pales in comparison to a meek and compliant cheerleading press corps. who are unwilling to point this out. Not only that, they are the ones who are constructing this false reality of St. John McCain.
updated below Jane Hamsher files FEC complaint against John McCain, and explains it all in the video, well most of it anyway. See, the Federal Election Commission cannot function to give permission to McCain and his alleged illegal campaign financing, spending $4 million over the limit after accepting public financing, due to vacancies.
An easy fix, right? Just appoint some folks and get to it. Well, not so fast. The Bush administration tried to "bundle" seriously chronic and flagrant vote suppressor, Hans Von Spakovsky, with a group of lesser-known lapdog lickspittle corporate reactionaries onto the FEC. Van Spakovsky was so heinous (read a little about his fevered schemes for a "permanent Republican majority" here) the administration installed the little "vote fixer" as a recess appointment. When it came time to formally clear congress, the Democrats amazingly found a spine and rejected him, causing Miss McConnell, R-Kentucky, the minority leader for the Senate, to throw a hissy fit and leave the posts unfilled.
So here is John McCain, hoist by his own petard, accepting public financing when he was sucking hind tit on the campaign trail, thinking he can just say he was teasing now that he is the presumptive nominee.
Since Campaign finance reform is a centerpiece of his identity, his apparent circumvention of the law in the area of campaign finance should call into question his integrity as a "straight talker."
Credit where credit is due: Good on CNN for at least bringing up the subject. Hopefully they will do a follow-up and force the other media outlets to look at McCains apparently illegal campaign financing.
In remembrance of the 4,000 brave men and women who sacrificed everything for us -- and the two men who would continue this great tragedy, despite the cost to our soldiers, our military, and our nation.
Another example of how our media ejaculates a story all over the grateful faces of folks here in the heartland. OPUBCO, stands for the Oklahoma Publishing Company, part of the Gaylord family entertainment and self-delusional enterprise, owns the Daily Oklahoman, our only state-wide newspaper. They are nothing but a huge fucking vacuum cleaner of money, sucking advertising dollars from local businesses (rates among the highest in the nation, circulation among the lowest) bank in Dallas and spend their money in Tennessee. They are not the friends of Oklahomans.
But that is not the point of this post. The sins they have perpetrated against Oklahoma are both wide and varied, the latest of which is labeling that which is bad and evil and rooted in and founded upon religious doctrine by zealots and fanatics, in short, the base of the religious right, and turned that to represent mainstream Americans who oppose the war.
The story is about Westboro Baptist Church, which is famous for its lunacy, and a Marine that took exception to one of the WBC members sticking an American flag down her britches. He charged the hill and was arrested. Protesters and counter-protesters and police were there. The marine was cuffed and stuffed and jailed for his troubles.
The whole problem with the story was Westboro Baptist Church being identified as a war protester, thereby staining all war-protesters as flag-hating anti-American.
The "reporter" on this story is named Ann Kelley, and I do not know if the editing process lopped off all the heinous background of this religious right hate-group, or if she intentionally conspired to mislead readers into believing they were left-leaning anti-war protesters. The result is the same, a skewed and downright dishonest portrayal of who the crackpots are and are not.
The center for the Global War In Error, Iraq, is now five years old. I have read many of the war cheerleaders posts across the blogosphere's lame-assed "How I Got It Wrong" posts, and see the thread of similarity. Nearly all of them point to error-riddled applications to our Iraqi-quagmire.
Nearly all pro-war pundits still believe, even today, the war was a good idea, but just badly managed. It is in effect, the competence defense. Which begs the question of what would a perfectly executed war plan look like if the war was doomed from the outset?
They all miss the point, and the point is, they do not understand the idea of America, or what it takes to be an American.
A group of neocons, along with multiple accomplices in the media hijacked American horror and anger over 9/11 and used it for their own benefit. A lot of people are now dead, many more are wounded, and a few are very rich.
Part of the American way is freedom, and we hold this so precious, we have enshrined it into law. An American can defend his life if the threat is "imminent", and can in some cases use deadly force. I cannot take a flamethrower to my office building because I think a co-worker will perhaps, someday in the future, punch me in the nose.
Iraq did not threaten us.
Iraq did not attack us.
Iraq had no weapons of WMD's.
Iraq had no connection to 9/11.
Now all these "serious people" who were wrong about everything want all of us to forget how completely wrong they were and the horrible consequences that resulted from their insane rantings, only to listen to them now about "The Way Forward."
And our Corporate Media meekly comply by giving the Kagans and the Kliens and the Kristols a place on our teevee to smear their street cred with the effectiveness of butt-scoot stank.
We rarely get to see war-critics on the panel talk shows, you know, the ones that were right about Iraq.
The same pundits who were Wrong About Everything warn of disasters Worse Than Ten Hitlers! if we pull out of Iraq.
Sorry, but you have lost your credibility card with me. Pull out our troops. If a bunch of bad stuff happens, maybe you can have some street cred back by saying "I told you so", until then, just STFU. Mmmmmkay?
I am very proud to have been a supporter of and active campaigner for the very successful MAPs project, however, I can not be more agnostic about this current proposal. To begin with, the good citizens of Oklahoma urged our leaders to build facilities able to house professional franchises, only to be mildly rebuked. Oklahoma City, we were told, did not have the population to sustain a professional team.
I suppose our guest-hosting of the New Orleans Hornets have proved otherwise. Clay Bennett, a local businessman and spouse to the Gaylord Media and Entertainment Empire (publishers of The Oklahoman) headed up an organization that purchased the Seattle SuperSonics on July 18, 2006 for $350 million.
Seattle, it seems, is unwilling to upgrade its facilities. The previous ownership group claims over $60 million in losses for the previous five years, and Mr. Bennett is working feverishly to bust the contract that ties the SuperSonics to Seattle through 2010. A minor partner of Bennett's new ownership group, Aubrey McClendon of Chesapeake Energy, was quoted in an interview that the SuperSonics were not purchased to keep in Seattle, and that they hoped to bring the team out to Oklahoma City. The NBA fined McClendon a quarter of a million dollars for the comment.
In short, it is no secret the vote on March 4 is to create snazzy new digs for the Sonics. However, nowhere is this disclosed in any of the campaign materials. Very limited information is available about what our tax dollars will buy. Since I see no disclosures of super swanky and private skyboxes that will benefit no one other than the Gaylord swells, would it be safe to assume none will be built using public funds?
It would be fair to disclose The Oklahoman's editorial endorsement of using public funds to subsidize BassPro shop installing a store in Bricktown, while the Gaylord Entertainment was a large shareholder of Bass Pro private stock.
Truthfully, most professional team owners need private skysuites to make a profit, and the system is rigged for taxpayers to build them. Under our current system, corporate welfare is needed so they can entertain us.
I do not know how I'll vote on Tuesday. If I vote no, I am voting against getting a professional franchise in Oklahoma City and if I vote yes I am voting to give public funds to a hard right-wing family and publishers of the "Worst Newspaper In America."
