Sleeping with The Devil

w-dervish's Top Four Democratic Legislators (And Dishonorable Mentions)

2012-02-12T13:36:00.002-06:00

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators ~ Unknown.

My favorite 4 Democratic Legislators; written in response to a post on the Contra O'Reilly blog. This "Moderate" blogger selects his legislators for (primarily) their support of the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Reduction commission (AKA the cat food commission) which has rightly (in my opinion) been criticized as being "stacked with people who want to target entitlement spending rather than any balanced proposal".

These four legislators are individuals I feel have exceptional character and integrity, and are among the cream of the crop. Politicians who have not been bought or sold, but in fact have been working hard for the average American (in alphabetical order)...

[1] Senator Sherrod Brown (Ohio) due to his opposition to free trade, and authorship of the book, Myths of Free Trade (which details why "an unregulated global economy is a threat to all of us"). I also respect him for being a strong advocate of equal rights for LGBT individuals and being ranked as one of the most Liberal members of Congress. Unfortunately he gets a demerit for his co-sponsorship of PIPA (The Protect IP Act).

[2] Rep. John Conyers (Michigan's 14th) for introducing (every session) HR 676 The U.S. National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act; The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States), voting AGAINST HR 1540 (The National Defense Authorization Act)... the horrible legislation that allows indefinite detention without trial of American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil (signed by President Obama!), releasing (5/2005) "What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report On The 2004 Presidential Election", voting not to count the electoral votes from Ohio in the 2004 US presidential election, suing the bush Administration in an effort to stop the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (a bill that cut Medicare and Medicaid) from becoming law, being one of the most liberal members of Congress.

[3] Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Arizona's 7th) for being the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, being rated as one of the most Liberal members of Congress, calling for a withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan, opposing Arizona's SB 1070, being strongly pro-choice, support of the public option, voting against HR 1540, receiving an "F" from the NRA, requesting that the UN certify elections in the United States, opposition to a border fence due to it's potential damage to sensitive wildlife habitats, and calls for stronger oversight of the oil industry - offshore drilling in particular (In 2010, he introduced H.R. 5355 to eliminate the cap on oil company liability for the cost of environmental cleanups of spills).

[4] Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Illinois's 9th) because she voted NAY on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's blueprint (Simpson-Bowles) and offered a superior alternative, voted not to accept Ohio's electoral votes in 2004 in response to concerns about electoral irregularities (it was in Ohio that bush stole the 2004 election), supported the public option and single-payer, voted AGAINST HR 1540, and because she gave a speech at the 2004 Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's 46th Annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington Dinner. Unfortunately I have to give her a minor demerit for her condemnation of the Progressive Democrats of America's support for the second Freedom Flotilla.

Dishonorable Mention... An individual who On The Issues (an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates) described as being a "hardcore Liberal", but upon closer examination THIS Liberal has to ask, "hard core? I think not", a decent Democrat perhaps, but I've got my problems with Wyden...

Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon) for being a useful idiot in teaming with GOP House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan to develop a Medicare reform plan that would result in the semi-privatization of the system (provoking a negative response from Wyden's Democratic allies, including President Obama), sponsored the Healthy Americans Act (would institute a national system of market-based private insurance), joining with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Trent Lott (R-MS) to help pass the bush Administration's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (The bush Administration is alleged to have forced officials to hide its true cost, which later was tripled and has been criticized as favoring pharmaceutical companies, as it prohibits the federal government from negotiating prescription drug rates), and for "mostly" supporting free trade.

A 12/25/2011 Mediate article by Tommy Christopher says...

The blowback from Politifact's "Lie Of The Year" award has been fast, furious, and despite Politifact's smug insistence to the contrary, bipartisan. One overlooked effect of the site's naming "Republicans Voted To End Medicare" their "Lie Of The Year" is that it gives the false impression that Paul Ryan's original plan to end Medicare as we know it was nothing to worry about, and paves the way for acceptance of the newer Ryan-Wyden Medicare "reform" plan. In an interview with Fox Business's David Asman, liberal radio and TV host Thom Hartmann slammed Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Politifact for their assault on Medicare.

Dishonorable runner-ups include Dick Durbin, Kent Conrad and Chris Van Hollen for their support of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. Simpson-Bowles was NOT a "good starting point" as it looked FIRST to entitlements for savings. According to economist James K. Galbraith "the current deficits were caused by the financial crisis [and] cuts in Social Security and Medicare would be harmful and would not reduce the deficit". Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research criticized the commission for omitting a tax on the financial industry, as was recommended by the International Monetary Fund. He also denounces co-chairs Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles for claiming to have looked everywhere on ways to increase revenue, but not including the financial industry (excerpted from Wikipedia).

I'm in complete agreement with the two economists quoted above. Instituting the Simpson-Bowles recommendations would have been hurt our economy. This is the primary reason I placed Jan Schakowsky on my top Democratic Legislators list. She voted NO, and for the right reasons (others voted NO, but for the wrong reasons; i.e. the commission didn't cut entitlements ENOUGH).

Conservatives Destroying American Jobs With Falsehoods About Unions & Free Trade

2012-02-05T18:13:00.003-06:00

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945). Excerpted from his statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, 6/16/1933.

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 1/5/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Have paying higher wages for manufacturing jobs been as disastrous for the "job creators" in Germany as here in the United States? According to the Right-wingers the greed of labor unions and the outrageous salaries and benefits they extracted from their employers bankrupted the auto industry. Is this true? Thom Hartmann reality-checks the assertion...

This is incredible when you think about this. Germany just announced this week, that their unemployment rate is the lowest it's been in 20 years. And 20 years ago they were doing pretty good. The also... and this is going to make your head explode... they also announced that not only do they make a lot of things there... they, for instance, make twice as many cars. Germany is ... smaller then us [81 verses 312 million people], and they made, last year, 5.5 million cars while we made 2.7 million. They also make precision equipment, medical machinery, precision tools, etc. But guess what the average auto worker in Germany makes.

In the United States the average auto worker makes $33.77 an hour. That includes the benefits. At GM and Chrysler the new hires are coming in at $14.00 an hour. That's in the United States. So we've seen, since Reagan came into office, the average wage of the average US autoworker dropping, from what would be in today's dollars around 45 to 50 dollars an hour, down to 14 dollars an hour at entry level. That's 30 years of Reaganomics... and insane free trade policies.

Germany, which protects it's domestic industries, requires large corporations have half of their board of directors made up of representatives of labor, has a system called "worker's counsels" where the workers make all the major decisions about the workplace... how things happen on the factory floor... In Germany the average hourly salary with benefits is $67.14. On top of that those German workers have free health care. Their children have free education through college (more or less free). It's amazing.

Conservatives would look at this and say, "Germany must be having horrible problems. They pay $67 an hour and the workers run the factories? Their CEOs must be hysterical". No. The CEOs and stockholders are doing just fine. In fact their companies are making billions. Last year Volkswagen, BMW and Audi... all three of the major German car manufacturers, all reported profits in the billions. That's the leftover money after everyone has been paid. After the CEOs have been compensated, and they're well compensated. Not hundreds or thousands of times more then the average worker, but dozens of times. They're making good money.

Horst Mund is an executive with IG Metall [the country's equivalent of the United Automobile Workers] said that because of the work's counsels "you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin". In other words, we're working together here. What an amazing idea, an economy where people collaborate?

And then, on top of that he said, "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals". Now, in Europe they refer to what we here call Republicans or Conservatives... they call them "neo-liberals". Liberalism in Europe means being in favor of business being able to do whatever it wants. Unrestrained business. As opposed to here in the United States where Liberalism means having a social saftey net, and providing people with bootstraps so they can pull themselves up.

So [Mund] says that the fact that the German companies are making billions in profits and the average auto worker is making $67.14 an hour. He says "this goes against all the mainstream wisdom of the neo-liberals. We have strong unions, we have strong social security systems, we have high wages. So, if I believed what the neo-liberals are arguing, we would have to be bankrupt, but apparently this is not the case. Despite high wages... despite our [the union's] possibility to influence companies, the economy is working well in Germany".

(The facts presented in Thom's rant are from a 12/21/2011 Forbes article by Frederick E. Allen, titled "How Germany Builds Twice as Many Cars as the U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice as Much".)

My Commentary: What this proves, as stated in an article by Daily Kos author Laura Clawson writes (12/28/2011) is that "German auto manufacturers' high profits and high pay show why U.S. labor laws need to be stronger". Because if the government doesn't force companies to pay decent wages they will take advantage of their employees and pay them as little as possible. The Daily Kos article concludes, "that's why we need laws that level the playing field for American workers -- and how we know, despite what Republicans tell us, that those laws won't tank our economy".

Such laws will actually be very beneficial to our economy, as it will put more money in the hands of workers, who will then spend it and stimulate further economic growth. This is the same reason why minimum wage laws don't cost jobs (as conservatives claim). Paying higher wages to workers (and a little less to CEOs) causes those workers to buy things; creating more demand; and thus causing employers to have to higher more workers to meet that demand.

Greedy unions forcing employers out of business and the minimum wage costing jobs are lies conservatives use in order to justify underpaying workers (and keep that money for themselves in the form of outrageous CEO compensation). Economies THAT WORK... like Germany's prove Conservatives are wrong. So-called "Right to Work" laws lead to lower wages and are bad for our economy. Protecting good paying American jobs via unions and tariffs are good for our economy. We need both higher unionization rates and higher tariffs.

This is why Congress needs to pass Card Check, tie increases in the minimum wage to inflation, and back away from the free trade agreements. Until (or unless) those objectives are accomplished the American middle class will continue it's decline.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 0:16 to 6:30 of Hour 3, Thursday January 5 2012.

Mitt Romney: A Destroyer of Companies & Jobs, A Vulture Capitalist, An Unethical Thief

2012-02-02T16:42:00.004-06:00

Bain made billions by, as the Los Angeles Times writes, "firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits". In all, Bain bankrupted nearly one-quarter of the companies it invested in, often causing "substantial job losses", according to a new Wall Street Journal report ~ Scott Keyes, writing for ThinkProgres, in a 1/9/2012 article titled, "GOP Speaks Out On Romney’s Greed: He Likes Firing People, Bankrupting Them, And Taking All The Money".

Bane, definition: a person or thing that ruins or spoils; that which causes death or destroys life.

Bain Capital, definition: an investment firm founded by Mitt Romney that ruins or spoils people's lives; an investment firm that causes the death of jobs and destroys companies.

The following video is an excerpt from the 1/10/2012 edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe". In the clip Newt Gingrich explains the issue he sees with Bain Capital. Below the video I've excerpted some of the dialogue from the interview that I'd like to address.

Gingrich (1:39 to 2:45): The question is, if you look at the Wall Street Journal report in the last day or two, if you have a company that cost 30 million dollars and they took out 180 million... and then it went bankrupt, they have some obligation, I think, to explain. Why did they take that much money out if it was bankrupting the company? I think that's just a fair question about process and judgment. I think people draw a very sharp distinction between investors who really want a company to succeed, and investors who basically take over the company for the purpose of draining out it's cash, and then walk out without any concern for the consequence.

I think Governor Romney is going to have to have a press conference at some point and explain what happened with these particular companies. Because they weren't just failures, they were just "oh, we went in, we invested, we lost money too". These were cases where they were making a LOT of money while the company was going bankrupt. I think you have to ask real questions about whether that's responsible management and the kind of management you want to see as president of the United States.

Gingrich (6:47 to 9:16): [responding to question: What are the specific concerns you have regarding his record at Bain Capital?] There was a company that they put 30 million dollars into that they, according to the Wall Street Journal, they got 180 million dollars. That's a 6 to 1 return. And the company went bankrupt. It doesn't seem to me like the owners were taking much of a risk. It doesn't seem to me like they were sharing in the problems of the workers. How could they, in good conscience, take 180 million dollars out of company that they invested 30 million in, and leave all the workers behind? What if they'd taken 60 million out, which would still have been a nice profit... would the company still be alive? Would the workers still have jobs? Would families still have paychecks?

I think there are at least three or four cases where it wasn't traditional capitalism. It's not, "I made an investment, the investment went bad, I feel sorry about it, but we all suffered". These are cases of, "I made an investment, I did really, really well. Sorry about the company going broke". I think people have the right to ask the question -- is that the kind of management responsibility you want in a president. And is that the kind of attitude you want in a president. ... This is, "I invested in something, I got richer, they got broke". I think he's going to have to explain that model.

My Commentary: The "model" I think is, as Rick Perry first said, Vulture Capitalism. Granted, this may not quite be the modus operandi of Bain Capital. Many of the companies they took over went on to become successful. But I'd have a problem if they did this just once. In my mind it is basically thievery. A vulture picks from the carcass of an animal that is dead or dying. And this appears to be what Bain did.

If, in their judgment, the company could be turned around, they made the effort to do that. If, on the other hand, they determined that it could not, then they took advantage of the bankruptcy process to load the company up with debt, pay themselves with that borrowed money, and then laugh all the way to the bank with no concern at all as to whom they were shafting. I think this behavior is utterly deplorable and should be illegal. There should be provisions in the law that allow those who lost money to come after Bain to recoup it.

According to a 12/3/2011 LA Times article, "Bain expanded many of the companies it acquired. But like other leveraged-buyout firms, Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy".

The Wall Street Journal, in the 1/9/2012 article referenced by Newt Gingrich, says one of their findings was, "that Bain produced stellar returns for its investors -- yet the bulk of these came from just a small number of its investments. Ten deals produced more than 70% of the dollar gains". However, "of the 10 businesses on which Bain investors scored their biggest gains, four later landed in bankruptcy court".

Was it because the company, so burdened by the debt Bain forced them to take on (in order to pay them for their "services"), eventually went under? I think the facts say "yes". My question is, would an ethical person seek a profit so out of proportion with their initial investment that it put the company in danger of failing later (the unbelievable 600% return cited by Gingrich)? I say "no". In my opinion (at least some of) what Romney did at Bain Capital was very unethical... it may have been legal, but it was quite unethical.

Further Reading

Romney's Bain Capital Made Billions While Bankrupting Nearly One-Quarter Of The Companies It Invested In by Pat Garofalo, ThinkProgress 1/9/2012.

Musclelaneous 110

2012-01-29T15:13:00.006-06:00

The one who cannot restrain their anger will wish undone, what their temper and irritation prompted them to do ~ Horace (12/8 65 BC to 11/27 8 BC) the leading Roman lyric poet during the time of Augustus.

"That was 110 gold pieces wasted" William the Moderate exclaimed as he exited the temple of the oracles. "What did the oracle say?" inquired Suri the disfigured mage. "She told me that there is no way I can be made whole again, excepting very powerful magics", William muttered dejectedly. "A regeneration spell, a wish, or a magical item that allows for either of the two". "That is a tall order", Suri agreed. "But if we were to track down such magic it's possible we could use it to restore us both. I could be beautiful once again, and your love muscle might be regenerated".

"We've been adventuring many a year and never have we encountered magic of that nature. It's a hopeless cause", William concluded. "Didn't you ask the oracle how, or if, such a feat could be accomplished?" Suri asked. "I would have", responded William, but the Oracle waved me away. Her vision had ended and she could tell me no more. At least that's what she said. Clearly what she meant was that I needed to pony up another 110 gold pieces. I have only enough left for a meal and a room at the Inn tonight".

"Very well. I shall ask the oracle. I also do not have enough gold pieces, but I have some items I can exchange for gold at the local pawnshop. Let us go there now". But William wasn't quite ready to leave. He stopped Suri, saying, "I never should have let you talk me into this. You know I place little faith in the gods". Suri frowned. How could anyone be so agnostic when the proof of the god's existence was all around them? William himself had been the recipient of spells of healing from their former adventuring companion, Joshua the brutally murdered cleric.

"Your lack of faith astounds me William. How can you disbelieve the God's existence considering all the times Joshua saved your life with his healing prayers?". William huffed, "does your magic come from the Gods? No. And I don't believe a cleric's magic does either. Wherever magic comes from I seriously doubt it is from some all-powerful being... Did Joshua's god save him when he was sacrificed at the alter of the Kuo-Toa?"

"Wait a minute!" Suri exclaimed. "Joshua's death was your fault! If you had not desecrated the Kuo-Toa temple by whizzing in the holy reflecting pool their king would not have demanded a sacrifice". "I've taken full responsibility for that", William protested. "Luckily for you I thought I was in love with you at the time, otherwise I might have pointed at you when the king demanded to know who was responsible".

"I should have killed you for that" Suri retorted angrily. "Because you possessed the earwig of interpretation, and due to the fact that the Kuo-Tao can't tell one human from another, you shifted the blame to Joshua and he died in your place!" Suri shouted, her face growing red. "Now that I think about it, I'd say it's poetic justice that you lost your manhood".

"I don't believe I should have died a horrible death due to an innocent mistake. Also, I expected either you or Joshua would cast a spell and save the day". This further enraged Suri who practically shouted, "You think it's my fault? William, I know you never liked Joshua, his being half-elven and a cleric. And then when you found out about our affair...".

"Oh, so now I'm a racist?" Willaim interrupted. "I doubt Joshua was even a quarter elven. Except for his slightly pointy ears and chiseled good looks, you could hardly tell he had any elven blood. Yes, I was jealous, but I most certainly did not want to see him brutally sacrificed".

Just then a pudgy priest dressed in black robes approached them. "You must be quite" he insisted. "Shouting is not allowed on temple grounds" the man cautioned, pointing his finger at William. William had had enough, and it was at that moment that he blew his stack and punched the priest in the nose. The priest screamed and staggered backward, blood spraying from his shattered sniffer. Tripping over his own feet, the priest fell and violently hit his head on the stone pavement.

"Oops, I didn't mean to do that", William remarked as Suri starred in horror at the unmoving priest. "I think you killed him", Suri proclaimed. "I think you're right" William said, nudging the downed priest with his boot. Looking around to see if anyone had witnessed the assault, and verifying that no one had, William suggested, "Let's get the hell out of here!". With that the two companions raced down the temple steps, across the sanctuary grounds, and through the iron gate they had entered when first arriving at the temple of the oracles.

Will Hart Bunks Yet Another Conservative Myth

2011-12-16T15:55:00.003-06:00

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression", all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. ... Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America ~ Liberal Talk Radio host Thom Hartmann, 3/12/2994.

Alternate Post Title: On How Smoot Hawley's Effect on the Great Depression was Negligible.

According to Conservatives, the protectionist legislation signed by president Herbert Hoover contributed greatly to making the Great Depression that much worse. The proprietors of Conservative blogs like "Contra O'Reilly" author literally dozens of posts claiming that Depression-era protectionist trade legislation negatively impacted the economy. In his latest post on the topic the Conservative blogger said...

...after the 1929 stock market crash, unemployment never reached double digits in any of the 12 months following that event, peaking at 9 percent, then drifting back downwards until it reached 6.3 percent in June 1930. It wasn't until Smoot-Hawley was passed that the unemployment rate started to skyrocket.

But according to Thom Hartmann...

The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans.

In other words, the depression and unemployment did get worse, but it had absolutely nothing to do with Smoot Hawely, which was, in fact, a good thing. Because it encouraged American job growth. All one has to do is examine the actual data to see what utter baloney blaming Smoot Hawley for the Great Depression is.

As pointed out by a member of the Thom Hartmann message board, the official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis prove that "there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy".

The negative impact that Smoot Hawley had on our economy (if any) was negligible, because as the author of "The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale" points out...

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

During the Great Depression GDP declined 46 percent. Of that, the net trade loss (exports less imports) accounted for a total GDP loss of less than 1/2 of 1% ($0.2 billion). Does this sound like an amount that would cause, according to the Conservative blogger Will Hart, the unemployment rate to "skyrocket"? It's actually quite laughable.

The Conservative blogger points out that economists "from across the political spectrum" were against the passage of Smoot Hawley, so that proves [1] that Smoot Hawley did make the Depression worse, and [2] Smoot Hawley making the Depression considerably worse isn't a "Conservative myth". In response I say [1] As the data shows the economists were clearly wrong, and [2] Smoot Hawley making the depression worse is only a myth NOW -- decades later. Of course Smoot Hawley making the depression worse wasn't a myth BEFORE Herbert Hoover signed it! The amazing thing is that this guy doesn't even realize how dumb his argument is.

So, in conclusion, was Smoot Hawley bad for the US economy? No, "protectionist" trade legislation is a GOOD thing. Smoot Hawley may have had a minor negative impact, but that was because it takes time for manufacturers to ramp up production of goods in the US (using US labor). In the long run "protectionist" trade policies grow the US economy by encouraging manufactures to create good paying jobs for US citizens. We need more of this kind of legislation.

YouTube Video Synopsis: Prominent economist Ha-Joon Chang is tearing a giant hole in the fabric of the free traders' universe by taking on the conventional wisdom that protectionism is detrimental to economies and the belief that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was responsible for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression.

William the Moderate Loses His Manhood (Suri's Revenge)

2011-11-25T16:46:00.007-06:00

What do you call love, hate, charity, revenge, humanity, magnanimity, forgiveness? Different results of the one master impulse: the necessity of securing one's self-approval ~ Mark Twain (11/30/1835 to 4/21/1910) born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Twain was an American author and humorist. He is most noted for his novels, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and its sequel, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), the latter often called "the Great American Novel".

The virtually nude female sat astride an enormous black panther, but it was no D&D fantasy. She had the face of a minotaur and a body to match. "Hey there handsome stranger", she snarled. "Who me?" William Hartenbaum replied. "Yea, you" she sneered. William didn't like the way the lady minotaur sneered at him. To him it appeared as though she was leering! William, having no desire to mate with an ugly, smelly half-cow, half-woman, turned and ran for his life.

The lady minotaur, still astride the giant panther, easily ran down poor William. The Dungeon Master rolled his 20-sided die and declared, "You failed your strength check. The lady minotaur successfully mates with you". "Damn you Slade!" William shouted, throwing down his dice in disgust. "Our child will probably be uglier than Suri Cruise!" Suri Cruise the disfigured female wizard was the character controlled by Joan Myste (and named after Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' daughter).

"Suri Cruise watches from afar in amusement" Joan Myste declared, snickering. "Why didn't you cast a spell to save me", William demanded, turning to Joan Myste. "My character laughs at your pain" Joan Myste responded. "She still harbors deep resentment over the incident during which your carelessness caused her facial disfigurement". "How was I to know giant panther urine is caustic?" William asked. "Who stomps on a cache of frozen panther urine?" Joan Myste retorted.

"OK", said the DM, "The lady minotaur has finished mating with you and now prepares to devour your dong, as is the custom with minotaurs. I mean this literally by the way. I'm not talking about a BJ". Looking quite frustrated, William exclaimed, "I remove the dagger I have hidden in my boot and gut the minotaur". Rolling his dice the DM says, "Sorry William, but you fail your dexterity check. The lady minotaur knocks the dagger from your hand and chomps down on your manhood, severing it completely. She proceeds to wolf it down". "Owe, that must hurt!" Joan Myste laughed.

"I cast a mass sleep spell centered on the minotaur" Joan Myste said. "So now you act, after I've been emasculated!" William shouted angrily. Slade rolled his dice and then announced, "the lady minotaur, the giant panther, and William the Moderate all fail their saving throws and fall fast asleep".

"I drag William's body to safety and leave the lady minotaur in peace. Then I sling William's limp body over the back of my horse and ride back to camp". "Thus the encounter ends, so sayeth Slade the DM. Evening arrives and William the Moderate continues to slumber. The next morning he awakens to a great pain in his groin. A strange man hovers over him. The man informs William that he is the local physician. William looks down and sees his private area (minus his dong) crudely stitched together".

William informs the DM, "I jump to my feet and attack Suri with my broadsword". "Why would you do that?" the DM inquired. "Your character isn't aware that Suri could have saved you from being raped by the lady minotaur. As far as you know she arrived as quickly as she could". "That's right" Joan Myste agrees. "That's what I tell William's character. I came to his rescue as quickly as I could. He should be thanking Suri".

The Famous Actress & The Scene Featuring Full Frontal Nudity

2011-10-02T13:58:00.005-05:00

The initial idea was to make something cheap and marketable. Nudity is definitely marketable ~ Jon Gorman, director of the 2007 comedy Bikini Bloodbath.

"I did a small amount of acting many years ago", I said, explaining why the young woman had just asked for my autograph. The puzzled look on Janeane Garner's face remained. I took the DVD and a sharpie from the woman and signed it. She smiled, thanked me, and departed. "I didn't know you were an actor", Janeane exclaimed. "Not really" I replied. "I was only had a few small non-speaking roles. There was however, one film where I actually had a few lines... but it ended up being shelved and was never released".

Janeane handed me my soda and cheeseburger, which she had just purchased inside the Burger King while I sat at an outside table. My head was spinning and I needed sit down for a short while to recover. The vertigo was a consequence of a brutal beating I had endured a few month ago. "Thanks", I said grabbing the soda and cheeseburger. "I take it this is a caffeine free soda?" I asked. "My doctor said that I shouldn't drink anything with caffeine in it".

"Yes, I remember" Janeane sighed. "Anyway, back to this acting thing. If the only film in which you had speaking role was never released, how is it that you have fans?" Janeane asked, obviously very interested. "It's actually not something I like to talk about", I protested. But I could tell from Janeane's expression that she wasn't going to leave me alone until I spilled the beans. "OK, I'll tell you" I said reluctantly, "but this stays strictly between you and I". Janeane nodded her head, indicating agreement.

"More than two decades ago I was in a direct-to-video movie. My scene, which involved some nudity, was deemed gratuitous and cut. But the film ended up not being released anyway. The woman who asked for my autograph asked me to sign -- and I don't know how they got out there -- a bootleg copy of the original cut of the movie".

"Wait a minute -- you're not saying that it was YOU who did a nude scene, are you?" Janeane inquired. "Yes, I was nude in that scene, but so was the female lead, a famous actress you've probably heard of. I played a man she met in a bar and took home for a one night stand. The director decided to cut the scene to avoid an NC-17 rating. The movie still would have been rated R, however, due to the excessive violence and profanity. From what I've heard, that is why it ended up not being released. Just as the film was being finished, the independent studio was sold to a large corporation, and it was the bigwigs there that decided to shelve it".

"Who was the famous actress" Janeane naturally inquired. "It was Geena Davis", someone who was not me answered. Apparently some jerk had been listening in to our conversation. I turned around and was shocked to see Smurf Jones, a detective with the local police department (although not really). "Jones, why the hell are you still following me" I demanded to know. "I didn't get the Soros funding, so, mission accomplished". This was the asshole who, along with his partner, had administered the beating. Although it was the pistol-whipping I received from Tony Hawkins which was the cause of my vertigo.

"I have investigated you thoroughly, Dervish" Smurf Jones responded with a creepy smile on his face. "I own a copy of that bootleg DVD, and I must say I find the scene in question very stimulating, if you get my drift". "Eeewww. That's sick" Janeane exclaimed.

"That reminds me", Jones continued. "I heard about another movie that Davis appears topless in. It's called There Will be Blood, and stars Daniel Day-Lewis. He's the dude, as I understand it, who won an award portraying a crippled spaz who can do artsy-fartsy things with his left foot. While I've got no interest in gay Liberal movies, I'm willing to give this one a shot for the nudity alone".

"I was just on my way to rent it when I spotted you sitting here. So, to answer your question, no, I'm not following you, this is just a chance encounter. Today is my day off".

While Jones had been talking I fumbled to find a certain item in my jacket pocket. "First of all", I said "you're a bigot, and secondly, Geena Davis isn't in that movie. I've seen it, and it contains no nudity what-so-ever. I know what blog you're talking about, and that guy doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. And lastly", I said, withdrawing the item from my pocket and holding it up for Jones to see, "...this is the Stun Master. At 2.7 million volts, it's one of the most powerful stun guns available. I won't hesitate to use it if you make a move to assault me again".

Jones did not look intimidated. "I'd put that away if I were you" he cautioned. "Simply threatening a officer of the law is an arrestable offense. I won't warn you again. And, by the way, I was going to swing by your office tomorrow. You still need to pay the court costs associated with your failed lawsuit. If you don't pay up soon I'm going to have to inform the judge. Either he'll order your arrest, or have your wages garnished. I favor doing both".

Jones was referring to the lawsuit I had filed against him, his partner Tony Hawkins, and Tannis Protection (the private security firm the Emergency Financial Manager hired when he privatized the local police department). The judge cited a lack of evidence and dismissed the lawsuit. And then he ordered me to pay all costs associated with the case. Which meant I currently owed Tannis Protection three thousand dollars! This was in addition to my mounting medical bills.

"Screw you Jones", I sputtered angrily. "Luckily Hawkins' pistol whipping just resulted in post-traumatic vertigo. My doctor said he thinks I'll gradually recover over the next couple of months. But I'm not taking the chance of your next assault killing me. I'll drop you, damn the consequences. I'm not taking any chances with my life. And, regarding your plans to visit my office -- you're banned from the building".

"I'm sorry Dervish, but you're wrong regarding that point, and you know it. Your lawyer brought this up during the trial and the judge told him and you that your employers must grant Tannis Protection access your workplace. Although I don't know how the hell anyone can earn a living working (if you want to call it that) at a Liberal think tank. But, you'll probably be out of a job after that clueless community organizer is bounced out of office in 2012. Thanks to your party's running up of the national debt which has held back an economic recovery... the American people will vote overwhelmingly for whoever the Republican nominee is. My bet's on Perry".

"Don't worry", Jones assured me. "I won't be stopping by your office tomorrow. You've been warned. You have until the end of the week to pay the bill sent to you by the court". With that, Jones rose from his seat and walked away, leaving me seething with anger.

The (Moderate) Crazies

2011-09-30T21:35:00.006-05:00

Moderate strategies in the past had moderate results ~ Marc Johnson, state appeals court judge, Kenner LA.

They turn Liberals into the "far left" and label them "the crazies". They turn themselves into "Liberals", even though they supported the illegal war with Afghanistan, eliminating the corporate income tax*, and call themselves "free traders". When I first starting blogging five (and change) years ago, I firmly considered myself a Liberal. I was an anti-war, for the middle class, in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy, opposed to unfettered free trade, anti-Fox News Liberal. Now, though, I'd probably have to say that I'm more Liberal.

But I've not really changed all that much. Just shifted a little further to the Left. I think the real question here is, seeing as a certain Independent Moderate Blue Dog Democrat (and others) consider me to be on the "far left", instead of simply a normal Progressive, how is is that the Moderate crazies think they can hijack the term "Progressive", move the goal-posts, and get away with it? I'm positive it's because that's the MO of the Right and their accomplices in the so-called Middle.

The Right has been so successful at moving the goalposts that they shifted a large portion of the Democratic Party to the Right. That's how we got Bill Clinton and the Third Way Democrats! I actually argued with a Conservative/Libertarian on a blog recently about whether or not Bill Clinton was a Liberal. This Con/Libertarian insisted that Clinton was Leftist/Liberal and that "a large number of Liberals embraced the Third Way"! Un-freaking believable, huh?

Note: This post is a rebuttal to a commentary on the Contra O'Reilly blog. Above I state that the proprietor of this other blog is in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax. This is true, but he also wants to increase the top personal income tax rate to 40 percent and tax capital gains at the same rate as regular income. According to him this will result in more taxes being collected.

I bring this up because I was accused of being a partisan liar for "leaving out" this information. But this post wasn't meant to be a rebuttal of Will Hart's position on the elimination of the corporate income tax, and I included a link that anyone could read themselves. Perhaps I'm just not that good of a deceiver? Anyway, I've added this note to eliminate any confusion. No "deception" was intended with this post.

Republican Hacks Responsible for Manufactured Solyndra Scandal

2011-09-26T16:39:00.005-05:00

I want seven hearings a week, times 40 weeks ~ Darrell Issa (b. 11/1/1953) Representative from California's 49th congressional district and head of the House Oversight Committee, announcing his plans to go on a witch hunt against the Obama Administration ("Darrell Issa plans hundreds of hearings", Politico 11/8/2010).

The following report is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 9/19/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. This report from the "news" segment of the program concerns Republican attempts to use the Solyndra scandal to paint the Obama Administration as incompetent...

Thom Hartmann: Last week the media jumped on the Obama Administration over a loan to solar company Solyndra that went bust, in what was dubbed Solyndra-gate. It was suggested that the loan was granted for political reasons and that the whole deal reeked of crony capitalism. But, as we are getting used to these days, the media dropped the ball.

Not only does Solyndra represent just 1.3 percent of the department of energy's entire loan portfolio and is the only company receiving loans to fail, but former president George W bush has more prints on the Solyndra loan then does President Obama. It was bush who created the program and spent two years urging the department of energy to approve the Solyndra loan, which it finally did only two months into President Obama's term.

Not only that, but regarding the accusation that the Obama Administration granted the loan in return for campaign contributions... one of Solyndra's top investors gets their money from the Walton family, a notorious contributor to the Republican Party... not exactly fans of the Obama presidency.

So here we have another scandal manufactured by Republican hacks for the media, when the media should be looking into the greatest crime of all, which is the destruction of the American Middle Class at the hands of the Republicans and the oligarchs who own them.

My Commentary: A 9/23/2011 New York Times article, titled "The Phony Solyndra Scandal" says, "The company's recent bankruptcy... was largely brought on by a stunning collapse in the price of solar panels over the past year or so". I was actually duped into believing there might be something to this scandal by an Obama-hating Conservative commenter on the Will Hart blog. According to a doofus who calls himself "Rusty Shackelford", the Solyndra "scandal" is going to cause BIG problems for Barack Obama, because it's going to prove to people just how incompetent and in over his head "Obie" the community organizer is.

For the record, I thought that the owners of the company may have done something untoward, not the President or his administration. But it turns out I was way wrong. The reason for Solyndra's failure is due to the fact that "the Chinese government is investing in solar production [and that] has led to a burst in production that has boosted supplies and forced down product prices worldwide". Turns out there is absolutely no scandal here what-so-ever, just a failure to accurately predict future market conditions.

Don't tell the Republicans this, however. Expect them to make as much hay as possible over this non-scandal. The corrupt Representative from California, sleazeball Darrell Issa, announced that he's launching an investigation. Regarding the function of the Oversight Committee under Issa, a 11/8/2010 Politico article says Issa enlisted "Patrick McHenry of North Carolina and Jim Jordan of Ohio... to chair some of his subcommittees". Politico refers to these two representatives as "aggressive partisans". I think it's clear what Issa's agenda is.

I'm with Thom Hartmann on this one, the Republican Party is totally owned by the wealthy elites and this bogus scandal is nothing more than a distraction while they continue their destruction of the middle class. And they're also miffed because George bush was SO incredibly incompetent and corrupt... and now they're desperate to get the same labels attached to Obama... but nothing is sticking. Hint: It's because Obama is an extremely intelligent, competent and honest man, not to mention an substantially superior POTUS when compared to the previous doofus who held the office.

They Made an Exceedingly Bad Decision, As I'm Sure Everyone Who Isn't an Idiot Agrees

2011-09-23T11:32:00.006-05:00

It is better to be precise than to be vague, that is, if you want to be sure people know what it is exactly that you're talking about ~ w-dervish, blogger extraordinaire, and font of wisdom on the internet.

They made an exceedingly bad decision, as I'm sure anyone with an ounce of common sense will agree. Clearly these chaps didn't take the long-range ramifications into account, because, if they had, they would have made a decision that was the exact opposite of the decision they made. Now I ask you, is it any surprise that a recent Gallup poll showed that a majority of the American people are outraged?

For the record, I'm in agreement with the vast majority of Americans who believe repealing the law was a bad idea. Obviously the solution (and I'm positive you'll agree with me) is to change the law back to what it was. Perhaps we should even make the law stricter. One thing is crystal clear though, and that is that this never should have been permitted in the first place!

So, the question I'm posing to you is, are you one of the majority of Americans who think this was not a good idea, or an idiot in the minority who thinks it was just what we needed? Even after the fallout of that bad decision and the subsequent attempt to make things right with new legislation, some people seem to still not get it. They think the new legislation should be repealed! They think it's bad for the economy! They think the reason for the bad things that happened was that the original law went too far!

I say these people are blaming the wrong parties; they blame one group when they should actually be blaming another. Can you believe it? I certainly cannot. Obviously these people have only the interests of the other group in mind when making their absurd accusations. Obviously the citizens should align ourselves with first group. Why? Because this group is us; that is, we are all part of this group. Our objectives are, or should at least, be harmonious. But that has not been the case as of late. Actually, it hasn't been the case for quite some time, but the disharmony became a LOT more pronounced following the last election.

What do we do about it? I don't know. The subgroup of the group of people that should be on our side has been aligning itself with the second group to an increasing extent over the years. Personally, I think only a sub-sub group of the first group is our only hope. If only an individual of this group could get him or herself elected to a particular office. You know which one I mean. Personally I think they all suck, but, more on that in a later post. Stay tuned. In the meantime, why not let me know what you think?

Note: Do you have any idea what the hell I'm talking about? This post was purposefully written using a style employed by a certain Moderate Independent Blue Dog blogger I've mentioned here before. When this guy writes something incredibly vague and you say you don't know what he's talking about... he'll blame YOU for not knowing what the heck he's talking about! The latest charge was that I didn't know what he was referring to because I watch to much of a certain Left-leaning news channel. No, I don't think that was what was at issue. The issue was that his post included too few fricking details!

President Obama's Jobs Bill Failure Would be a Success For Republicans

2011-09-08T21:09:00.002-05:00

This plan is the plan that dare not speak it's name. It's real name is stimulus, but that word has been banned from politics in Washington ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 9/8/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

The following discussion is an excerpt from the "The Last Word" with Lawrence O'Donnell, 9/8/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Lawrence asks Representative Barney Frank of MA if the President's proposed American Jobs Act has a chance of passing the House...

Lawrence O'Donnell: What are the prospects in the House of Representatives for this bill?

Rep Barney Frank: I'm afraid they're not very good. As I'm standing here I'm hearing one of the younger Republicans proclaim loudly that government can't do anything. These are people who believe we have no capacity to come together to do anything. I am afraid that the [radical] Right-wing that has the Republican Party by the throat is going to block anything. I think the president did a very good job of making it clear that he was compromising. This isn't everything I would like him to do. It isn't everything he would like to do.

But I think he correctly said, look, I want to get results. And the only chance of getting results is to say to Republicans, I'm giving you some of the things you want. I am afraid that it is not going to be helpful. I credit the president for trying. I don't know what more he could have done. You are dealing with people who... let's be very clear about the Tea Party and their patron Grover Norquist who's made them all sign these pledges... these are people who do not understand that government has an important role. That there are things that we can only do if we come together to do them. To build bridges... to provide for the elderly in their retirement if they aren't otherwise wealthy.

These are people who don't believe in that. Frankly, sadly I have to say, and I've had to conclude this... they don't want the economy to get better. Because if the economy gets better, Barack Obama's chances to win get better. These are people for whom the major goal is to defeat Barack Obama. Secondarily to discredit government. They don't want people to think there are things we can do. They are ideologically committed to the idea that there shouldn't be any government, so they are not trying for success. They don't want Obama to succeed and they don't want us to show that government can work in the public interest.

My Commentary: The Republicans won't agree to another 447 billion dollar stimulus bill regardless of whether or not it is "paid for". President Obama proposes paying for this bill by increasing the cuts the so-called "Super Congress" will be making. Does this mean that if no agreement can be reached and the automatic cuts are triggered... the jobs bill is dead? I agree with Barney Frank, I do not see this legislation going anywhere.

Further Reading

Obama Jobs Plan: $447 Billion, More Than Half In Tax Cuts, To Be Paid For By Super Committee by Sam Stein, The Huffington Post 9/8/2011.
Text: Obama's Jobs Speech: There are Steps We Can Take Right Now by National Journal staff, The National Journal 9/8/2011.

Obama's 9/8/2011 Jobs Speech To Congress, Full Video (32:58)

The News Wasn't Always Reported for Profit

2011-09-08T15:17:00.003-05:00

With all the mass media concentrated in a few hands, the ancient faith in the competition of ideas in the free market seems like a hollow echo of a much simpler day ~ Kingman Brewster, Jr. (6/17/1919 to 11/8/1988) an educator, president of Yale University, and American diplomat.

The following monologue is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom's rant concerns reporting the news for profit, the Fairness Doctrine and Republican attempts to distort what the consequences of it were...

Thom Hartmann: The fact of the matter is, in 1987 when Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine. The core of the Fairness Doctrine was not, if you put an hour of Rush Limbaugh on you've got to put an hour of Thom Hartmann on. It had nothing to do with that. There were talk shows, in fact Alan Berg's talk show was on the air back in the 70s out of Denver, and he was blowing a signal into 20-some-odd states. He was the most popular talk show host in America. He was a Liberal. He was gunned down by a couple of neo-nazis. The next big talk radio guy to come along was Rush Limbaugh in 1987.

When Reagan stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine, the core piece of it was that, in order to own a broadcast license... in order to have the right to broadcast over the air (radio or television), you had to be broadcasting in the public interest. That was interpreted by the FCC as meaning you had to actually present news. The news had to be unbiased, and it had to be disconnected from any commercial interests of the station or the advertisers of the station.

Back in the 70s I worked in news for 7 years... and I could have gotten fired for hanging out with the sales people. You just didn't do it. The news divisions were separate. The news divisions of all the networks lost money. The fairness doctrine ceasing to be enforced in 1987 was the first chink in the armor, then in 1997, after Bill Clinton signed the telecommunications act... this really put the nail in the coffin.

I was driving down the street and I heard a news report that said that CBS news, the storied home of Walter Cronkite, had just put their news division under the control of the Vice President of Entertainment at CBS... which meant that the news division was now a profit center... which meant that instead of getting news, you were now going to be getting infotainment.

You were now going to get the stuff that was profitable to the network and the stuff that flattered the advertisers. You wouldn't get the stuff that was hurtful to the advertisers. If they had part ownership in a movie studio, suddenly we're going to see those movie stars on their news programs. If they have part ownership in a publishing company you're going to see those authors being profiled, you know, whatever. And I remember thinking; this is really a sad day for America. Not just for journalism but for America

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 31:10 to 33:58 of Hour 3 on Thursday August 11 of 2011.

My Commentary: On 8/18/2011 a commenter on a Conservative blog I frequent said, "Even news has to be a profit center in today's world". The comment was in response to the Conservative blogger's post about women he finds attractive hosting news programs. Obviously the goal of these news programs is to draw men in to oggle the beauties. It obviously works for the Conservative blogger Will Hart who watches Fox News programs for this reason. This is an individual I've discussed before. He calls himself a moderate but is really a moderate to liberal Republican.

But the Conservative/Moderate blogger isn't the reason for this post. The reason for this post is because I wanted to respond to what a Conservative commenter said about the news being a profit center in today's world. In response to that comment an individual who calls himself "dmarks" said, "It's always been that way. Go back to the days of Uncle Walter, and beyond to Benjamin Franklin's original Saturday Evening Post".

I'm not positive what "Uncle Walter" dmarks is referring to, but Wikipedia says Uncle Walter is "a nickname for broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite". During Walter Cronkite's time the news was not reported for profit. The news wasn't reported for profit from 1949 when the Fairness doctrine was introduced until August of 1987, when the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote (38 years).

The above comments by Thom Hartmann reflect the world as it actually was, a reality I thought even a conservative would acknowledge, simply because nobody would believe a rewriting of history so severe. But clearly Conservatives left the reality based community long ago and have never looked back.

Further Reading

Fairness Doctrine: Secret Republican Agenda Exposed! by Craig Aaron, The Huffington Post 1/8/2009.
The Fairness Doctrine How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back by Steve Rendall, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) 2/12/2005.

Thom Hartmann: Should the Fairness Doctrine be revived?

Means Testing Is An Insidious Plan to Destroy Social Security & Medicare

2011-09-05T17:48:00.001-05:00

The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. ... Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years ~ John Rother; an excerpt from his 1/29/2010 article "Don't Means Test Social Security" from the "political opinion" section of US News & World Report.

The following discussion/rant is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/11/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom answers a caller's question regarding means testing programs like Social Security and Medicare...

Caller: Wouldn't it make sense to put the people in the program that actually need the assistance, and leave the people who don't need to be in the program out of it? Putting everyone under one umbrella is going to be a lot more inefficient and a lot more expensive? Take care of the people who need taking care of and leave the rest of the people out.

Thom Hartmann: You just brought up my favorite Republican talking point. This is probably one of the most sick and twisted Republican talking points that's out there. This is the Republican plan to destroy Social Security and Medicare... through something called means testing. There are 132 thousand people in the United States who make over a million dollars a year. And so they're saying why are those people getting a social security check? Why does Warren Buffett who's 80 years old... why is he eligible for Medicare?

Well, here's why... it's very simple. When you start means testing a program, when you say that anyone who has "means", anyone who is rich shouldn't get that program, only the people who need the program, who don't have means should be in the program... then that programs becomes what's called Welfare. Now, when Bill Clinton came into office... of the people who lived below the poverty line -- 57 percent were eligible for Welfare.

After Clinton's Welfare reform, which sold well to the American people, because we were in the middle of the dot-com bubble... everybody, Democrats and Republicans looked and said there aren't that many poor people anymore... so let's cut the Welfare programs. Let's make it harder for people to stay on Welfare for extended periods of time. Now it's down to 27 percent. Only 27 percent of people who are actually in poverty can get Welfare.

Because, in large part, because of the changes that were made during the Clinton administration. Although there were changes made before and after... this isn't a bash Bill Clinton screed. The point here is that when something is only available to poor people... poor people don't make campaign contributions. Poor people do not have lobbyists in Washington DC. And so the first thing that goes on the chopping block are programs only for poor people. If you want to destroy Social Security and Medicare, the first thing you do is get all the rich people out of it by means testing.

That way it's no longer an insurance program that covers everybody. Then, once you get them out of it in terms of it in terms of benefits. Then you can say why are they paying into it, because they're getting nothing out of it? Then you can cut even more money out of it, and now you've got a program that's really in a crisis.

This is the Republican strategy... to sound very reasonable... whether it's in an editorial that they're writing for the newspaper, or it's in a phone call to a radio show... This is one of the slickest, sneakiest, most slimy and disgusting strategy going. Saying we need to means test Social Security and Medicare and turn them into Welfare programs.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 13:02 to 16:54 of Hour 3 on Wednesday August 24 of 2011.

Reading Sleeping with The Devil Leads To Great Bliss & Complete Knowledge

2011-08-28T15:01:00.005-05:00

Pain and foolishness lead to great bliss and complete knowledge, for Eternal Wisdom created nothing under the sun in vain ~ Kahlil Gibran (1/6/1883 to 4/10/1931) a Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer chiefly known in the English speaking world for his 1923 book "The Prophet", an early example of inspirational fiction including a series of philosophical essays written in poetic English prose.

The head of the Progressive Ideology Foundation Laura Fawkes smiled and embraced me. "Welcome back Dervish", she said warmly. "We were genuinely worried about you when you disappeared and it appeared to be foul play". "Actually", I said, "I've been back at work for more than four months now. Although, according to what I've heard, nobody really cared that I'd disappeared or that foul play may have been involved. My research assistant Janeane told me that the tip line our security man Rusty Farber set up received zero calls. And I heard that you alerted the news media but they declined to cover the story".

"We suspected the two officers from Tannis Protection who have been hanging around here were responsible, but when we called their office they denied it", Laura responded. "It was Smurf Jones and Tony Hawkins, acting under the direction of Emergency Financial Manager Reginald Kingston who kidnapped me, held me for several days, and then released me".

"Thank goodness they released you", Laura Fawkes interjected. "Actually, I don't feel that lucky", I replied. "They beat me savagely... and caused me to miss my appointment with the representative of George Soros. An appointment I had hoped would allow me to obtain additional funding for my blog. I tried to set up another appointment but the representative said all the money that Mr. Soros had set aside to support Liberal bloggers had been allocated for the year".

I saw a look of genuine concern cross Laura's face when I mentioned my failure to secure the funding from George Soros. That had, in fact, been the reason why the Tannis goons had nabbed me. They wanted me to miss the meeting and lose the Soros funding. Also, after I returned from my three days of imprisonment and torture I found that the entirety of my investigative staff -- almost a dozen people, had been reassigned to other, more successful bloggers.

Budget cuts at the Foundation were why I sought the funding from Soros to begin with. Laura told me awhile ago that the Liberal think tank (also known as "PIF" or informally as "Liberal Headquarters") could no longer pay for my investigative staff. My Senior Fellow position with PIF was safe, as was Janeane's (since she had been assigned to be my research assistant in my pre-blogging days), but the Foundation would no longer subsidize work on my blog.

As a Senior Fellow I was a success, but as a blogger I was a failure. I considered shuttering the blog, but decided to keep it open and update it only occasionally, on my own time. So, "Sleeping with the Devil" was not going to become successful like "The Daily Kos" or "The Huffington Post". My plans were initially that it would, but clearly that was now out of the question. Unless I could obtain funding from another source. But perhaps it was for the best. I probably wouldn't have been approved for the Soros funding even if I had kept that meeting... which made me wonder, why were Jones and Hawkins so keen to keep me from it?

"In any case, I'm glad to hear you've decided to refocus your energies on your research here at the Foundation", Laura Fawks said, interrupting my train of thought. "Yes, I won't be wasting any more of my time here at work with that foolishness" I fibbed. What I did on my own time didn't concern the division chief. Clearly she didn't read my blog anyway, or pay attention to the expense reports I submitted. Janeane wasn't supposed to attend the conference in DC with me back in May, but when I submitted my request for reimbursement for two plane tickets and two rooms at the Capitol Hill Suites, her office approved it.

"Great! That's all I wanted to talk to you about... I just wanted to be sure the blogging issue was settled", Laura said, dismissing me. I left, shutting the door to her office behind me. Out in the hall I spotted Barry. He was standing there, apparently waiting for me. In his hands he held a small wrapped package topped with a bow. When he saw me Barry smiled and said, "So, Dervish, I'm guessing Laura lowered the hammer?". "Barry, I have no idea what you're talking about" I answered; then I started down the hall at a brisk pace, not wanting to know what Barry was talking about.

"Wait up", Barry said, trotting after me. "This is for you", he said, handing me the package. "It's a parting gift; something to say, sorry to see you go, if you will". "Barry, I'm not going anywhere, except away from you", I said, swatting the package away. "What the hell?", Barry exclaimed. "I know you've never liked me Dervish, but I like you. And I'm genuinely sad you got canned".

But Barry didn't look sad; in fact he was still grinning. What Barry didn't know was, being a Senior Fellow, I couldn't be fired except by the board of directors. Laura Fawkes wasn't on the board, and thus had no power to terminate my employment. But I didn't tell Barry that. I grabbed his present and walked away. Finally I lost Barry when I sprinted up a flight of stairs on my way to my office on the second floor. But shortly after I closed and locked my door I heard Barry knocking. I ignored the thumping and tossed Barry's unopened gift in the trash.

Figures Don't Lie, But Rick Perry Figures

2011-08-21T13:04:00.004-05:00

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures ~ Evan Esar (1899 to 1995) an American humorist who wrote Esar's Comic Dictionary 1943, "Humorous English" in 1961, and 20,000 Quips and Quotes in 1968.

The following monologue is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 8/17/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom's rant concerns Texas Governor (and 2012 presidential candidate) Rick Perry's claims of job creation in his state...

Thom Hartmann: Rick Perry is running around saying, quote, "Since June of 2009, Texas is responsible for more than 40 percent of all of the new jobs created in America. Now think about that. We’re home to less than 10 percent of the population in America, but 40 percent of all the new jobs were created in that state". End of quote.

Now, notice that he says since the end of June 2009. If you go back to 2008, jobs actually grew faster in Massachusetts (a classic example of "figures don't lie, but liars can figure"). And secondly, Texas has actually done worse than the rest of the country in increasing rates of unemployment. In fact they are the worst in the country, in terms of how rapidly unemployment has increased in the state.

Why? For the exact same reason why they have created more jobs than any other state -- because over 437 thousand people of working age people (it's probably over a million when you consider their spouses and children) have moved into Texas. Many of them from Mexico. Many of them from surrounding states. But because Texas by-and-large doesn't enforce anti-immigration laws like Arizona, a lot of illegal immigrants are moving out of Arizona into Texas, and because Texas hasn't a higher minimum wage than any other state, you've got a lot of cheap labor in that state. A lot of cheap labor.

So, 437 thousand people moved into the state, and the state only created 126 thousand jobs. So, Texas has seen an explosion in unemployment. Over 300 thousand people -- the most rapid explosion of unemployment in the entire United States. At the same time they created more jobs.

I would submit, that probably the major factor, is that because of Senate bill 1070 in Arizona, people who are in Arizona illegally... or simply people who are in Arizona and committing the crime of walking down the street while being Hispanic, even if they're American citizens... those people are saying screw this hostile atmosphere, I'll go to Texas, where people are actually, in many parts of Texas, proud of the fact that they're bilingual, and a lot of people have Mexican heritage. People who are 5th generation American Texans, are proud of their Mexican heritage.

So you've got a lot of people moving out of Arizona and into Texas. But while 126 thousand of them found a job, 300 thousand of them didn't. It turns out Rick Perry is really wrong. But expect him to repeat it... it's his lie.

Note: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 13:30 to 17:03 of Hour 2 on Wednesday August 17 of 2011.

The Hard Left Progressive Who Lost Faith in President Obama's Vision

2011-08-02T12:36:00.003-05:00

I'm going to vote NO. I think this proposal is extraordinarily unfair. It's going to make devastating cuts to programs that working families and low-income people desperately need. At the same time it is not going to ask the wealthiest people in this country or the largest corporations to contribute one nickel to deficit reduction. It is not only grotesquely immoral; it is very bad economic policy that will cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs ~ Bernie Sanders (b. 9/8/1941) responding to a question asked by guest host Al Sharpton on MSBC's 8/1/2011 airing of the Ed Show. Bernie Sanders is the junior United States Senator from Vermont.

In the end the President blinked ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 8/1/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

I've lost faith in President Obama's vision, or, more accurately, I've lost faith that his vision is what I used to believe (or hope) it was. Also, when I suggested (in my previous post) that Social Security Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit the poor are back on the chopping block I was wrong. Not only was I wrong, but I was implying that the President is a liar. This is what a self-described "good 'ole hippie liberal" who is now disappointed with the "hard left" progressives says.

I'm sorry to disappoint a fellow Liberal, but I believe Glenn Greenwald who says Obama wants to "cut entitlement programs long cherished by liberals [because it] will increase his appeal to independents and restore his image of trans-partisan conciliator that he so covets". I also believe Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks who says Obama is "eager" to cut entitlements (see the video at the bottom of this post).

For the record I do NOT believe the President is a liar. He just didn't say any of these programs are protected from cuts. The super committee CAN cut anything. Everything IS on the table. I'm going by what it says in the "Bipartisan Debt Deal: A Win for the Economy and Budget Discipline" fact sheet on the White House website.

Specifically the fact sheet says, "The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform WILL be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks".

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs that benefit low income folks are safe from any cuts ONLY if the super committee can't reach an agreement, or the recommendations of the super committee are voted down by either house of Congress, or if they are vetoed by the president.

In regards to that possibility Robert Greenstein, founder of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (and a guest on the 8/1/2011 airing of MSNBC's "The Last Word") said, "the super committee could raise revenue but it will not [because] Boehner will not appoint a single Republican who will approve any tax increases". And he concluded that "it is a FOREGONE CONCLUSION that the super committee will fail".

But I'm not so sure the super committee will fail. The members of the super committee will consist of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans (who haven't been selected yet), and if this committee is anything like the Simpson-Bowles committee, they WILL recommend cutting entitlements. For all we know the 3 Democrats appointed could be Blue Dogs and EAGER to cut entitlements.

If a second deficit reduction package that includes entitlement reforms is agreed to by the super committee and passes Congress -- I think Obama will sign it.

Also, contrary to what the hippie Liberal believes, the president didn't promise to let the bush tax cuts expire. What he promised is that he wouldn't extend them for the wealthy a second time. HOWEVER, this is the same promise he broke when he said he was initially going to let them expire. I see another excuse similar to the first one coming.

Remember the first time he extended them he said he didn't have a choice because the Republicans were holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage? The same thing is going to happen again... and Lawrence O'Donnell (a progressive pundit both I and the hippie Liberal watch) agrees... or, it is my impression he does.

Last night (8/1/2011) Lawrence O'Donnell said (not an exact quote), "The Republicans will always win in the fight to extend the bush tax cuts UNLESS the President is willing to let all the tax cuts expire, including tax cuts for the middle class and working poor -- and extending these cuts was something Obama campaigned on".

I think the super committee will recommend cutting entitlements. I think the Super Committee will NOT recommend, "shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks". I think Congress will pass the super committee's debt reduction package, and I think Obama will sign it. Or, this is what I FEAR will happen.

The only way I see this not happening is if either -- Robert Greenstein is right and, "it is a foregone conclusion that the super committee will fail", or if Progressive Democrats block the package -- and every time in the past when they said they might block something... they did not. They said they'd block the Affordable Care Act if it didn't include a public option. They said they'd block the deal that extended the bush tax cuts. They said they'd block the deficit reduction deal that included the raising of the debt ceiling if it didn't involve "shared sacrifice".

The President, I'm afraid, WILL sign a deficit reduction package that cuts entitlements and contains ZERO "shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks". I hope I'm wrong and the hippie Liberal is right, but being part of the "hard left" I'm inclined to believe (even though I can think for myself) other "hard lefties" like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Robert Greenwald, Cenk Uygur and Bernie Sanders.

Hopefully we're all wrong and what the president negotiated is "a win for the economy and budget discipline". Or perhaps, as Lawrence O'Donnell said on his program, the largest deficit reduction package in history is actually the "the most ill-conceived deficit reduction package in history" and "the stupidest deficit reduction package in history".

An Age of Austerity & Plutocracy

2011-08-01T18:04:00.010-05:00

Historians will look back on tonight and this week as the beginning of the age of austerity in America ~ Jonathan Alter (b. 10/6/1957) speaking in his role as an MSNBC contributor on 7/31/2011 and referring to the debt-ceiling deal. Alter is a journalist and author who has written books on Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama. Alter was the senior editor for Newsweek magazine from 1983 until 2011, and is currently a lead columnist for Bloomberg Review.

One of the final nails is close to be hammered into the coffin. Yesterday (7/31/2011) the President and Republican leadership reached an agreement to withdraw life support from a dying economy. There may be something to Lawrence O'Donnell's claim that President Obama won the debate by appearing to be the only reasonable party amongst the negotiators, and that could very well help him win Independent and Moderate votes in 2012, but at what cost?

The economy will not recover nor will jobless numbers drop by any significant amount. Unemployment figures are likely to start rising again once the cutting begins and we'll head into a double-dip (or a prolonged period of stagnation). Will Independent voters still go for Obama in November of 2012 because 16 month previously he capitulated to Republican demands for zero tax increases (or even elimination of loopholes) for the wealthy? Or will they cast their votes for Willard Romney?

The title of economist Paul Krugman's 7/31/2011 New York Times article is The President surrenders. Krugman says that when the deal goes though, "many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong". The entire package may turn out to be a wash anyway, since slashing spending will further depress the economy and thus tax receipts. Krugman compares spending cuts to "medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker".

This is the lesson the Republicans learned when they forced the president to agree to the very bad deal back in December of 2010 when the bush tax cuts were extended. Paul Krugmann says that this is when the President should have "demanded an increase in the debt ceiling".

Krugman calls the deal a "catastrophe", pointing out that "just a few weeks ago [Democrats] seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare [but] now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away". Because this deal creates (another) comission that will recommend (by November) an additional 1.5 trillion in cuts (in addition to the 1 trillion in cuts already agreed to). The big three, says the president, will again be "on the table".

According to Robert Reich's article, "Ransom Paid", "Anyone who characterizes the deal... as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics". In his absolutely correct assessment of the situation, Reich says, "biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth". Mr. Reich also makes the point that cutting spending will cause the economy to contract (therefore if you think this is a good deal you do not understand economics). Also, the deal was arrived at not through negotiations but through brinkmanship and hostage taking, which isn't how the political process is supposed to work.

This is a very bad deal for the Democrats and for the country -- and the Republicans know it. In fact, I say they are banking on it. When the cuts are enacted and the economy predictably contracts -- the Republicans will be quick to blame the president. The worsening economy will help the presidential campaigns of Willard Romney and (for certain) Michele Bachman (who didn't want to raise the debt ceiling at all). I've heard it suggested that we could see a Romney-Palin ticket in 2012. With Michele as VP the problem some Republicans who may have a problem voting for a Mormon will be overcome.

First on the agenda for President Romney will be the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, followed by passage of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Although, even if all three branches of government were controlled by the Republicans, I doubt 3/4ths of state legislatures would pass a balanced budget Constitutional amendment. But even without a Constitutional amendment, a Republican-controlled government could institute a lot of harsh austerity measures, even over the objections of the people (austerity measures have been passed in Greece, despite the fact that Greek citizens are demonstrating against them).

Is this the beginning of an age of austerity and plutocracy to coincide with depression and decline? Contrary to the hypothesis put forward by Lawrence O'Donnell who believes the President prevailed in the debt ceiling negotiations, I think Barack Obama may have set himself up for defeat in 2012. I'm worried that the bush recession will lead to the Romney depression.

This is the second half of the very bad deal and, in my opinion, should be rejected by Democrats (or all non-Blue Dog Democrats, at least). I've included a list of petitions below. It is my strong belief that Barack Obama should reject any deal that does not include tax increases and invoke the 14th amendment if necessary.

Petitions to Reject President Obama's Capitulation

Tell Congress: Kill The Bill a petition from Democrats.com
Dennis Kuchinich's petition to tell President Obama that Social Security is not a Pawn, Kucinich.us

Toasting Cantor Shorts With Norquist Bubbly

2011-07-24T14:03:00.008-05:00

The time is fast approaching when to call a man a patriot will be the deepest insult you can offer him. Patriotism now means advocating plunder in the interest of the privileged classes of the particular State system into which we have happened to be born ~ Leo Tolstoy (9/9/1828 to 11/20/1910) a Russian writer known primarily for his novels "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina".

"Relax, it's just a tax write off", Slade Leeds assured his friend William Hartenbaum. "By the way, I heard you've been hanging out with those two assholes Russ Teafeur and Vincent Vanderschmit lately". "You heard wrong Slade, I haven't seen either of them for months", Willaim lied. Slade continued, "it's a premium charity, not a lemon as you have suggested. Anyway, I was thinking of donating some money to Johnny Moo Moo's homeless shelter, but when I called him this morning I was told he hadn't been seen since yesterday".

"That's strange", William lied again. "Indeed" agreed Slade. "In any case, these friends of yours insulted me when I asked if they'd like to donate to my charity. Russ called me a bleeding heart Liberal ass-wipe, and Vincent told me to do something nasty to myself. And he called me a do-gooder. But, as I explained, the charity is just a tax write off. Those shitheads know we both belong to the same Moderate organization, so I don't know where they get off calling me a Liberal".

"I love Russ, you know that. He wasn't serious. He's just a provocateur. Slade, you just can't let him get under your skin". "Look William, I'm sick of you making excuses for Teafeur's bad behavior. You know, before I knew he was such a dick I actually invited him over to my place for a cocktail party". "This story again!" William laughed, cutting his friend off. "You've told it a million times. Yes, he took a dump right next to the hors d'oeuvre AND the glass swan. Like I said, he's a provocateur. He knew some of your Liberal donors were in attendance. Specifically that miscreant Cliff Thesage".

"That is total nonsense, my friend", Slade retorted. "You don't have to be able to read between the tea leaves to figure out Russ Teafeur is a major league a-hole". Just then a slight Asian woman entered the room from a doorway behind the bar. "Here is the bottle of Champaign you requested my dear", she intoned. Slade's wife Sassy Leeds was originally from Beijing, and although her native language was Mandarin, she spoke English with only a slight accent.

"Thank you Sassy" said Slade, popping the cork and pouring himself and William a glass of bubbly. "This is a $700 bottle of the finest Champaign from the South of France. Sassy just received a case from a client as a thank you". Sassy was an interior designer who decorates the homes of the wealthy and powerful in the DC area. "The client was Samah Norquist. This Champaign is compliments of Grover himself", Sassy explained, laughing. She knew how much Moderates like her husband and his friend disliked the man. "His money, and his Champaign are as good as anyone's, even if he is a right-wing radical", Slade said, draining his glass and quickly pooring himself another.

"In any case, I've instructed my broker to invest in the same fund as Eric Cantor, the one that's betting against United States debt. If the US defaults or is downgraded we both stand to make a pile of money!". William mulled that over for a while, downed his Champaign and then responded, "Some may say Cantor has a conflict of interest, or that because of his investment in such a fund he'd deliberately sabotage the negotiations. While I do not agree with his actions during the debt ceiling negotiations, I think his bet against US debt indicates he is a prudent investor. I'm sure conspiracy theorists on the Left are having a field day with this revelation. Myself, I'm going to take your advice and also invest in the fund".

Sassy reminded her husband she needed to get to work and exited the room. "Goodbye" she said, giving her husband a firm handshake. It was an inside joke William had never inquired about, even though he had seen the "goodbye handshake" numerous times before. Perhaps it had something to do with Slade's irrational fear of protocol.

Slade then explained the situation as he saw it, "Of course neither of us wants the credit rating of the United States to be downgraded, but anyone investing in treasuries would stand to make more on their investment with a increase in interest rates". "I'm in complete agreement" William concurred. "As is often the case, what is unbeneficial to the middle class and poor is often beneficial to the wealthy. I'd thank the gods if any existed that I was born one of the productive members of society".

"Excuse me dear friend, but you inherited your money. I earned mine. If either of us is one of the so-called productive members of society that would be me". This was a disagreement they had before. It caused William to wonder if his friend was Society material. "Sometimes I wonder if the Higher Ordered Person's Society is a good fit for you", William wondered out loud. "Next you'll be telling me capitalism is a rigged system that works to the benefit of the wealthy and to the detriment of the poor".

"That is a truthful observation", Slade answered his friend. "But, don't get me wrong, I'm a true believer in capitalism. It may not be perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than the European Socialism pushed by the radical Leftists". William nodded his head in agreement, mollified that his friend and he shared similar worldviews. There was no place in the Society for radical Leftists or radical Right-wingers. HOPS members traveled the morally superior middle path. They agreed with the Left on some social issues, but more strongly with the Right when it came to fiscal matters.

"Us capitalists shall be magnanimous in our treatment of the less fortunate. So long as they put forth an effort. Let them toil in our factories and service industries and we will see they receive the bare minimum needed to survive, even if that entails some government welfare". Slade, who was in total agreement with his friend, added, "The greedy Left with their tin-cups always seek to steal our wealth, threatening the use of force if necessary".

"I've said it before and I'll say it again", William concurred, "A frigging bum off the streets can do that. Extend their tin cups, that is. Which reminds me of what you said earlier... I can't believe you're considering donating money to Johnny Moo Moo's homeless shelter. You do realize all the vagrants he's attracting are depressing the property values in the area? Why, just yesterday Voltron, um Vincent Vanderschmit told me that he might lose some of the tenants in an office building he owns nearby".

"That is sad", Slade mocked his friend. "I know how much you loathe bums, but I think some of them, at least, are redeemable. They just need a leg up". "Perhaps some are redeemable", William reluctantly agreed, "but the majority are not. They'll just take whatever money you give them and spend it on rot-gut. I strongly contend that any money spent trying to save a worthless bum is money wasted. The dregs of society don't derserve, and have not earned, our compassion.

"And your buddies Vincent and Russ agree with you on that, I presume?" William's friend queried him. "It just so happens they do", William responded. Then he thought better of his answer, adding, "Or at least I presume they do, it's been awhile since I last spoke with either of them, if you recall".

The Rage of The Plundered Affluents

2011-07-23T11:54:00.004-05:00

Arresting a single drunk or a single vagrant who has harmed no identifiable person seems unjust, and in a sense it is. But failing to do anything about a score of drunks or a hundred vagrants may destroy an entire community ~ James Q. Wilson (b. 5/27/1931) an American academic, political scientist and leading conservative scholar, Wilson is a professor and senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College and holds an advisory position with the American Enterprise Institute.

Three friend sat around a campfire in the middle of the woods in the dead of night. The party had been going on for hours. Each of the three friends were quite buzzed from all the alcohol consumed and all the pot smoked. Finally the sky turned crimson as the sun began to rise. The three friends fell silent for several minutes as they contemplated packing up and driving back to the city.

Finally William Hartenbaum spoke. "Excuse me, Voltron", he said, addressing his friend Vincent Vanderschmit by his nickname, "I do not think it fair that you claim 10 points for snuffing out Johnny Moo Moo. The group never agreed to additional points for high value kills".

"Listen up William", Voltron said, raising his voice. "I took out Johnny Moo Moo with a single knife thrust to the kidney. You never saw anything sweeter. And, seeing as he was wealthy like us, I think ten points is entirely justified". "He wasn't that wealthy", William objected. "I doubt he had more than a few hundred K in his bank account". "Chump change, in other words", Russ Teafeur interjected. "That may be so, but he was no worthless bum, which was my point", Voltron countered. "Anyway I had no choice but to off the punk after he saw William bash that bum in the head with his baseball bat".

"That was the second one of the night for me", William reminded his friend. "Two points". "Yes, William, you have two points, Russ has three, and I have now have twelve. Johnny Moo Moo was definitely worth ten. The cops are going to be investigating the disappearance of that do-gooder for certain. Ten points is entirely justified. Ten points for anyone of significance, five points for an ordinary schmo, and one point for a worthless bum. It might not have been agreed to before, but I'm telling you now that's how it's going to be".

"Volt, I think you've lost it", said Russ, "snuffing out worthless bums is one thing, but Johnny Moo Moo is entirely different. It can't happen again or the cops will start to take notice. You ain't getting no ten points either". "I agree" William said, interrupting his friend. "By the way I find it incredibly convenient for Volt that Johnny Moo Moo just happened to see me smash that bum's skull. He's been griping about Johnny's homeless shelter constantly since it opened two months ago".

"That's right William", Voltron responded. "That do-gooder lowered property values by attracting dozens of worthless vagrants to the area. I own an office building a block away, and the actions of this evil bastard had some of my tenants speaking of moving out. But you didn't like the guy either William".

"You've got that right" William agreed. "Johnny Moo Moo was a tax and spend Liberal. Although, Johnny was at least calling for taxes that would apply to him. Most Liberal soak the rich types are ordinary schmos who wouldn't be affected by the tax hikes they're calling for. I've said it before, but it's the easiest thing in the world to call for tax increases that don't apply to you. A frigging bum off the streets can do that".

"Bums and Liberals with their tin cups, both think we OWE them!" an outraged Russ suddenly yelled. "What Liberals fail to realize is that the last thing the productive people need is to be harassed all the time". "Russ, I could not agree with you more" William clapped his friend on the back, then stood. "If there is one thing I can absolutely not abide, it's alcoholic pan-handlers who spend whatever you give them on rot-gut. I can stand them no more than you Volt".

"And the Liberal thieves like Johnny Moo Moo who want the government to redistribute our money" Voltron added. Then William declared, "it's the plundering of the afflunents, and it's got to stop". William picked up a large stick and stuck it into the fire, stirring up the embers. "Johnny Moo Moo is now nothing but ash and charred bone".

Grabbing a shovel from the back of his nearby pickup truck William began digging a hole directly next to the smoldering fire. "Well, let's get to it. Help me bury what's left of Johnny Moo Moo so we can go home", William ordered his friends. Voltron and Russ took up shovels and soon they were scraping the contents of the fire into the hole they had dug.

"I spit on your grave" Voltron declared, hawking a loogie onto the freshly packed earth. Then, after throwing their shovels and other gear into the back of the truck, the three friends departed. "Don't worry about it guys", Voltron assured his companions. "William's buddy Slade Leeds owns this property, and he's personal friends with the mayor. Nobody will ever find Moo Moo's grave".

A Story That Makes No Sense What-So-Ever

2011-07-21T10:24:00.010-05:00

In battling evil, excess is good; for he who is moderate in announcing the truth is presenting half-truth. He conceals the other half out of fear of the people's wrath ~ Kahlil Gibran (1/6/1883 to 4/10/1931) a Lebanese American artist, poet, and writer chiefly known in the English speaking world for his 1923 book "The Prophet", an early example of inspirational fiction including a series of philosophical essays written in poetic English prose.

"A story that makes no sense what-so-ever? You've got some nerve! I've sent you lamebrains dozens of short-story masterpieces and you've failed to publish a single one! Screw you, I'm done! You won't have William Hartenbaum to laugh at any longer!". The man finished screaming and slammed down the phone. "Can you believe those nimrods?" he said to no one in particular. "Refuse to recognize my genius!".

William was still feeling quite high, as earlier in the day his buddy Slade had offered him a few tokes on his bong that he couldn't refuse. That was before the basilisk had turned his poor friend to stone. One minute he was stoned, and the next he was literally a stone statue.

William tried to put the horror of the events that transpired only a few hours ago out of his mind and get back to work. "Please send my next appointment in", William said, pressing one of the buttons on the device sitting on his desk. "Yes sir, I'll send Mr. Leeds right in", a disembodied female voice replied (it was actually his secretary Lynda). "Whoa, that is weird", William giggled. "She's out there, but I can hear her in here!".

Then William nearly jumped out of his chair when he realized what name had come from the box on his desk. Lynda said she was sending in his dead friend Slade Leeds! How could that be possible?, William wondered. But before he could reason it through the door opened and in walked Slade Leeds in the flesh, or possibly a doppelganger. William readied the pistol he kept in a right-hand drawer just in case, aiming it at the look-alike from under his desk. He placed his finger on the trigger and almost fired, deciding at the last millisecond to see if he could deduce what this stranger's game was.

"Hello Slade, if that IS your name", William said, greeting the man he had presumed dead. He removed his finger from the trigger. "Hello William", the disheveled man who could clearly not even dress himself replied. William surmised he was a sorcerer of some kind. He probably had cast some kind of spell, reversing the stoning that had killed his friend, then stripped him down and donned his clothing. The man's pants were on inside out, and the buttons of his blazer were in the wrong buttonholes!

"I was worried for your safety my friend", the disingenuous imposter said. William put his finger back on the trigger and prepared to fire. "You were SO high when you left the Quarry", Slade commented. The Quarry was the name of the bar Slade owned, William remembered. Now it was coming back to him. His buddy and he had been up all night playing Dungeons & Dragons and getting wasted drinking and taking bong hits!

"I'm going to need that check back I gave you last night" Slade said. "You dented my Ferrari with your pickup when you left this morning. Pay my HOPS dues out of your pocket and we'll call it even", Slade explained, sticking out his hand. "Wait a second", William protested. "The Higher-Ordered Person's Society yearly dues are scheduled to be collected today. The manager from the head office will be here shortly and any member who isn't paid up will be assessed a late fee. I can't get the money to replace your check for at least a few hours".

"You're suggesting I drive around in a dented Ferrari?", Slade scoffed incredulously. "Of course not Slade, that would be unseemly. I just need to get to the bank and make a withdrawal from my trust fund. I'll have the money for you when I drop by the Quarry later today", William assured his friend. "Very well", Slade replied, "but I thought you were meeting up with Mark after work today".

"You may be right", William said, flipping through his day planner. There it was penciled in for 3pm. He was supposed to meet Mark downtown where they would hand out HOPS fliers. "Can it wait until tomorrow?" William asked his friend. "My dedication to the Society comes first. We've got to convince as many people as possible to call Democrat Congresspersons and urge them to concede as much as necessary to get the debt ceiling raised".

Slade really admired his fried when he spoke with such metaphysical certainty about the Moderate organization they had both dedicated their lives to. "Of course buddy. I'll drop the Ferrari off at the shop today, take a cab home, and drive the Hummer until the damage is repaired. I'll send you a bill and you can pay it whenever". "Sure", William agreed. What the hell did he care? His dearly departed father had left him almost a billion dollars when he died, but his friend Slade was just a lowly millionaire.

"To the Society", Slade declared, extending his arm again. William stood and extended his arm. They performed the secret handshake and William echoed his friend's sentiments, "to the Society!" he declared.

Tea Party Stupid A Liability for Republicans

2011-07-14T23:43:00.004-05:00

President Obama continues to outsmart, out-strategize and out-talk the Republicans in the debt-ceiling stand off ... Vice President Biden spent weeks entertaining discussions of massive spending cuts -- as much as 3 trillion dollars in spending -- that is now clear that the White House had no intention of ever actually agreeing to in the end -- because the White House always knew that the Republicans would never agree to the White House tax revenue proposals ~ Lawrence O'Donnell (b. 11/7/1951) on the 7/13/2011 broadcast of his MSNBC program "The Last Word".

Critics of the president denigrate him by referring to him as a community organizer. For some it's an insult to his intelligence, meant to imply that he is in over his head. He isn't qualified to be president and does not know what he is doing. For others the term "community organizer" is a political dog whistle used to disguise their racism to individuals not hip to the most current code words.

"Community organizer" is code for, according to a 9/13/2011 Daily Kos blog post, "N-Word Lover". A certain individual who posts on a supposed Moderate blog I frequent uses the term quite often. He also refers to the president as "Obie". My guess was that "Obie" is code for "boy" (see the first comment here for an example of what I'm talking about).

The Right-wing Obama-haters also frequently refer to the president's use of teleprompters, even though Reagan and both bushes used them. The blog Pensito Review suggests that "racism is at the heart of rightwing disbelief that a black man would be as stunningly brilliant and yes, articulate, as Barack Obama". That sounds very probable to me.

I have posted on the subject of the teabag racists in the past. I agreed then (and still do now) with President Jimmy Carter who described the bigots as a "radical fringe element". But whether or not any particular Tea Partier is racist or not, there is one thing that is certain, which is Community Organizer smart trumps Tea Party stupid.

In the debt ceiling negotiations President Obama offered a four trillion dollar "grand bargain" which was to consist of 1 trillion in tax revenues and 3 trillion in cuts (including cuts to Social Security and Medicare), but as the president himself pointed out, "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to". He was signaling to Congressional Democrats and his base that they should not worry about cuts to our social safety net programs because the Republicans would not agree to everything ("everything being the 25% of the deal that was revenue increases). The purpose of offering so much was to appear reasonable to Moderates and Independents (which he needs to win re-election).

"The president's superior strategic maneuvering" is how Lawrence O'Donnell characterized the president's plan to gain the upper hand by appearing reasonable ("The Last Word" 7/13/2011). The Republican leadership knows they have no choice but to raise the debt ceiling, but are afraid of angering the Tea Party elements within their party which does not.

I propose we call this lack of ability to compromise and general ignorance regarding the workings of government "Tea Party Stupid". Absent the stupid the Republicans COULD have extracted some serious concessions from the President, but instead the question is who is going to capitulate and give the other side exactly what they want (which, in the president's case, would be an increase in the debt with zero other stipulations).

Acknowledging Republican Party leadership had been duped, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell characterized the three options offered by the president as "smoke and mirrors, take hikes, or default". Then he added, "Republicans choose none of the above". So, if they can accept no deal (not the "smoke and mirrors" deal and not the deal they proposed) AND since the debt ceiling MUST be raised -- then raising the ceiling with no conditions is the only option left.

"I refuse to help Barack Obama get re-elected by marching Republicans into a position where we have co-ownership of a bad economy" McConnell said when explaining his party's idiotic refusal to accept ANY deal (even the one which handed Republicans virtually everything they want). The truth of the matter, however, is that they are scared of the stupid.

But the Republican leadership still needs to figure out how they can concede and still claim victory, or place all the blame on the president. They also need to convince House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (who, unlike Boehner and McConnell, is still saying "no deal, no way") to get with the program. If they fail to do this they risk bringing down the wrath of the Tea Party on their heads.

Mitch McConnell proposed allowing the President to pass three debt ceiling hikes (through the end of his term) which the Republicans could disapprove of -- but then the president could veto (Youtube video). A clueless Boehner voiced his approval for the McConnell plan saying, "frankly I think Mitch has done good work".

McConnell and Boehner were hoping that, given Tea Party Stupid was the reason they were in this quandary, Tea Party Stupid could get them out of it. Unfortunately even the Tea Party was not quite dumb enough to fall for McConnell's copout. They knew McConnell was looking for a way to give the President exactly what he wants and still be able to claim the Republicans voted against it.

Conservative commentators were not fooled either. Michael Medved, writing for The Daily Beast on 7/14/2011, called the McConnell proposal "cowardly", although his article also uses the word "cunning" (cowardly but cunning). Personally I fail to see how such a transparent deceit could possibly be called "cunning".

This is a victory for Barack Obama no matter what happens next. In addition to using the Tea Party Stupid against the Republicans, he used the stupid to APPEAR reasonable and fool Moderates and Independents. Can the blog of a certain so-called Moderate be taken as proof that the President's ploy was successful? "I try and call it down the middle as often as possible... [and] I've totally got the scars to prove it" the self-described Moderate claims. These Blue Dog dopes praised Obama for placing entitlement cuts on the table. A 1/11/2011 blog post says "he's the one who's being serious and taking on his base".

But the offer was never genuine. If you recall these same types of rumors were flying around just prior to the President's 2011 State of the Union address. A 1/21/2011 CBS News article says "voters have approved of the president's recent moderate moves" and, as a result, "Obama's job approval rating stands at 49 percent, up from 45 percent in October". So, again, the president said things to appear Moderate, but didn't actually follow through. The takeaway lesson is that "nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to".

In conclusion... I'm happy the President is kicking Republican ass in the negotiations, and that the 3 trillion in cuts, and the placing of entitlement reform on the table is all just a bluff. The good news is that the Tea Party loses and the Moderates are fooled (which will help the president get re-elected). The bad news is that AT BEST the only the only thing the Democrats will get will be a clean bill raising the debt ceiling. Maybe we'll get some tax revenues through the elimination of loophole and subsidies. If possible I'd really, really like to see the subsidies for the oil industry go. But I still think the President should have pushed for the elimination of the bush tax cuts the MINUTE he assumed office, and should have NEVER agreed to extend them. I pray that the next time they expire that this is it, and THEY ARE GONE FOR GOOD.

Republican Congresspersons Who Are Reconsidering Their Stance Re the Debt Ceiling

Maybe the debt ceiling was the wrong place to pick a fight, as it related to trying to get our country's house in order ~ Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee speaking on the Senate floor, 7/14/2011

Our problem is, we made a big deal about this for three months. How many Republicans have been on TV saying, "I am not going to raise the debt limit". We have no one to blame but ourselves ~ Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as quoted in a 7/13/2011 New York Times article.

The Idiocy of Moderation

2011-06-30T19:05:00.003-05:00

Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation ~ William Lyon Phelps (2/2/1865 to 8/21/1943) An American author, critic and scholar who taught the first American university course on the modern novel. In addition to a radio show, he wrote a daily syndicated newspaper column, lectured frequently, and published numerous popular books and articles.

This rant came about in response to a post from a so-called Moderate attacking, yet again, what he calls the "extreme Left". This post from the so-called Moderate was deceptively titled The Indecency of Extremism. I say "deceptive" because, one might think that, given the title, this individual would cite examples of arguments from both the "far Left" and the "radical right" that he finds "indecent". This isn't the case. Instead he whines exclusively about visiting a Left-leaning message board and being attacked when he defended John McCain against charges that he was "a North Vietnamese collaborator" (Which, as far as I can tell, may or may not be true).

The blogger WTHPH says he pointed out that, while he is no McCain supporter (this was during his bid for the presidency), he felt he needed to point out the inaccuracies of this (supposed) extreme Leftist's argument. When I read Will's post I was, naturally, insulted. After I laid out some of my issues with what Will wrote another moderate chimed in to agree with Will. I had suggested I might write a post for my blog, and title it "The Idiocy of Moderation". In response the OTHER Moderate repeated Will's lie about the problem being, "extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle who absolutely refuse to budge [from] their ideologically entrenched positions".

This, I say, is complete nonsense. I will get to my reasons why, but first I'm going to relate what my issues with the Moderate blogger's post are. to being with (and as I already said), the title of the post implies that WTNPH is going to clue his readers into the reasons why "extremists" on both sides are "indecent" -- but that turns out to be a lie since the entire post is a whine about how Liberals attack him whenever he visits their message boards (a frequent complaint of his). This is a tad ironic given the fact that he often accuses a certain left-leaning pundit of having "thin skin".

Secondly, this accusation that John McCain is guilty of collaborationism that Will implies originated with the extreme Left isn't true. When McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 the group Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain made "controversial allegations against Senator John McCain concerning his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam". A video (see below) put out by the group features allegations from ex-Senator Bob Smith (a REPUBLICAN from New Hampshire) and Rep Robert Dornan (a REPUBLICAN from California). The group is not a Left-wing version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (who made slanderous allegations regarding John Kerry's service in Vietnam).

In wrapping up his post WTNPH asks, "don't these people realize that you can defend somebody simply because it's the right thing to do and NOT because of political considerations?". He concludes, "it really doesn't seem that they do". The "these people" and the "they" that WTNPH refers to are Progressives. These are the "extremists" that WTNPH is indicting for the (supposed) ill treatment he was subjected to. As one of "these people" who WTNPH regularly slanders I take exception. I do realize you can defend someone for the reasons WTNPH gives.

During the video Congressional staffer Tracy Ursy says, "Certainly you do what you need to do to stay alive. Nobody would fault anybody for that", and I agree with that statement. I would not go so far as to say McCain is guilty of collaborationism. But I think it's pretty clear that he did all he could to keep all the facts from coming out. And I think it is legitimate reason to criticize him for these actions (in keeping the facts hidden).

Now, in regards to the allegations implied by WTNPH on numerous occasions and echoed by this other Moderate that I referenced earlier; that is, that "extremists" on both sides are responsible for the current budget crisis -- I categorically reject this notion. It's part and parcel to the BIG LIE perpetrated by the Republicans -- which is that the American people should blame both sides equally for the 14.32 trillion dollar national debt. Democrats and Republicans do NOT share equal responsibility for the 14.32 trillion dollar national debt. That debt is MOSTLY Reagan's and W's. Obama is adding to it now, but (1) he's doing it to prevent a depression, and (2) the wars on the books now, unlike with bush who ran them off budget.

Also, while the other previously mentioned Moderate believes "we are where we are because of extremists on BOTH sides of the aisle who absolutely refuse to budge on their ideologically entrenched positions", the fact is he's dead wrong (and is playing right into the Republicans hands by propagating this misinformation). Progressives are not being allowed to participate in the negotiations. They are being totally SHUT OUT (as usual). The negotiating parties are the radically-right Republicans and the Moderate and Conservative Democrats. Nobody on either side has suggested that the middle ground lies somewhere between Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity and the Progressive People's budget.

The progressives ALWAYS budge. Did we get the public option? No. Was the ridiculous and totally unnecessary Stupak–Pitts Amendment excluded from the Affordable Care Act? Yes, but the president "compromised" by issuing an equally ridiculous and unnecessary executive order "preventing" government funds from being used for abortions (even though the Hyde Amendment already accomplishes this).

The conservative position regarding Social Security is that it should be abolished and replaced with a voucher system (shifting much more of the costs onto the backs of future seniors). The Democratic position appears to be that raising the retirement age and decreasing benefits should be examined. Neither is the Progressive position, I can assure you of that. And on it goes -- the Progressives state their position and are ignored by both sides. How the hell can we be part of the problem when nobody gives a damn what we have to say? We can refuse to budge, but no one will care.

This is the idiocy of the Moderates -- they really believe the solution to all our problems lie in the middle. What they fail to realize is that the middle has shifted significantly to the Right. The radicals on the Right are the only extremists we should be blaming, because only they are threatening to not raise the debt ceiling if they don't get their way. Even though they voted to raise it multiple times when bush was president. But with a Democratic president they hold the middle class tax cuts hostage until he caves, and they get exactly what they want.

What are the Democrats threatening to do? Wait until the last moment before they cave again? According to this other Moderate "we gotta start talking WITH each other not AT each other". Then he says "if we don't come to our senses soon, its all gonna go down the toilet". In response I have to ask -- what's with the "we"? Everyone knows President Obama is willing to compromise (by giving the Republicans a large chunk of what they want). With the Democrats things that shouldn't be on the table are, and with Republicans nothing is on the table. Even tax loopholes for corporate jets are sacrosanct. Democrats aren't the ones who are refusing to negotiate in good faith.

The other Moderate says, "I am a Blue Dog Democrat and I gather from your past post you don't think much of me". Yes, you are correct. Moderates are part of the problem. If you truly "sympathize with a lot of progressive issues" then why not STAND WITH US? We need to send a message to the Republicans, which is that their threats aren't going to work this time. But no, standing with the Democrats and the American people would involve standing against the Republicans. Which is something you are apparently unwilling to do. Because you refuse to admit one side is to blame while the other is not.

Countdown to Keith Olbermann

2011-06-20T04:51:00.003-05:00

Stop organizing life around the people who don't get the joke. Fuck them if they don't get a joke ~ Bill Maher (b. 1/20/1956) American stand-up comedian, television host, political commentator, author and actor on the 1/21/2011 episode of his HBO program "Real Time", referring to Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World" segment and his departure from MSNBC earlier the same evening.

The detractors of Liberal pundit Keith Olbermann cheered when he announced he was leaving MSNBC on 1/21/2011. Loyal fans such as myself were shocked at the abruptness of his departure. Yes, I was aware of his clashes with management, but I also knew that Countdown was MSNBC's highest rated show, and that Keith still had almost two years left on his contract.

After a few miserable weeks mourning the loss of the awesome progressive pundit word leaked that Mr. Olbermann would be returning to his role as champion of the American people via Al Gore's Current TV. I (metaphorically) jumped for joy upon hearing the news! The only question that remained was HOW LONG would Keith be off the air? MSNBC would probably prohibit Keith from jumping back into the fray for as long as they could; because they knew that the sooner Keith returned the more viewers they would lose; they wanted time to build an audience and acceptance for Keith's replacement, Lawrence O'Donnell. I admit I like Lawrence's show, but I'm going to follow Keith to Current TV.

In case you did not know, Keith makes his triumphant return TODAY (Monday, June 20, 2011) on channel 358 on DirecTV and channels 196 and 406 on Dish Network. The program will still be called "Countdown" and the time slot will also remain the same... 7pm Central time. Be sure not to miss this historic event! I like Lawrence's show OK, but I'll tune into Keith first and catch the repeat of "The Last Word" later.

150 days will have passed since Keith Olbermann announced he was leaving on 1/21/2011 until his return on 6/20/2011. 105 of those days were weekdays on which new episodes of Countdown COULD have aired. Seeing as the name of the program remains the same, I'm assuming that the format will also remain the same. This means fans can look forward to the return of Keith's insightful and passionate "Special Comment" and the intentionally hyperbolic "Worst Person in the World" segment. Regarding the Worst Person segment -- his critics seem to not get it. Either intentionally (so they have something to bash Mr. Olbermann for) or because they are just that dense.

Following are some comments regarding the aforementioned segment I pulled from a blog dedicated to hating on Mr. Olbermann...

Here's a comment from the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly dated 1/20/2011...

For years, Keith Olbermann has been doing this idiotic shtick entitled, "Worst Persons in the World". He claims that it was never meant to be taken literally, that it [is] in fact a metaphor. Never mind the fact that the tone of his voice, his self-righteous indignation, etc., made it actually SOUND like he means it...

And just recently another commenter on the same blog voiced a similar opinion regarding Keith's Worst Person segment, saying...

Olbermann is one of those human cartoons. How can anyone take him seriously at all when he goes on about how someone is the "worst person in the world" for being a talking head on another network who happens to beat him in ratings. [An obvious reference to Bill-O.]

The proprietor of Contra O'Reilly, who believes Keith Olbermann to be "a mean-spirited, cowardly, paranoid son of a bitch whose forte is strictly to throw bombs/hyperbole from the comfort of his studio", says Keith Olbermann's Worst Person segment is ad hominem. But Keith Olbermann has made it clear that the title "The Worst Person in the World" is not intended literally and is intentional hyperbole. Regarding where the idea came from, Keith Olbermann says...

They aren't really the worst persons in the world, of course... The epithet tracks directly to [among others] George Carlin... who startled me decades ago by the simple but irrefutable argument -- the astonishing observation hidden inside the safety of a joke -- that by the process of ranking, there truly had to be, somewhere, the worst doctor in the world. More terrifying still, he noted, "Somebody has an appointment to see him tomorrow!"...

When I pointed this out to the WTNP Blogger he said, "I have seen many of Mr. Olbermann's worst persons segments and for a lot of them he clearly ISN'T kidding around -- he's pissed". This is a prime example of what I was talking about when I suggested that Keith's critics are "just that dense". Only the TITLE of the segment is a "joke", the actual offenses being highlighted are VERY real. The targeted individuals have actually done things which most people (or Liberals, at least) will find objectionable.

The individuals named aren't murders or rapists, so they aren't literally the Worst Persons in the world, but neither are their offenses a "joke". I think anyone who has seen the segment and isn't a idiot should be able to understand what the joke is. But obviously, for whatever reason, the Keith haters still use this against him. I agree with Bill Maher who said, "fuck them if they don't get a joke".

Also, the charge that the Worst Person segment is ad hominem is blatantly false. Wikipedia says that an ad hominem is "an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it". In the Worst Person segment Keith is highlighting outrageous and despicable things said and done which NEED to be highlighted. has never concluded that anyone is guilty of doing something despicable because, for instance, they're a fat drug-abusing hypocrite (in the case of Rush Limbaugh).

He may have called Rush a fat drug-abusing hypocrite, but that charge was NEVER used to "prove" Rush was the worst person in the world. I think anyone who describes this segment as "ad hominem" doesn't really understand what "ad hominem" means. The Worst Person charges always stand on their own and have never been "proven" with ad hominems.

Finally, there is one additional accusation from Blogger WTNPH that I'd like to address: on 11/23/2010 Will Hart said...

Edward R. Murrow covered the London blitzkrieg in 1940 -- out on those very same London city streets, day after day after day. What, folks, has Mr. Olbermann ever covered (other than his ass, I'm saying)? I mean, seriously here, has he ever even been out of the studio? That, me-buckos, is at least one major distinction between these two news "reporters".

In response I said, "this is, by far, your lamest anti-Olberman argument yet. He hasn't put his life in danger to cover a story, so he isn't a "real" reporter? [Olbermann's program is] a political OPINION show -- and a damn fine one at that. Formulating political opinions doesn't require you to put your life in danger. For you to suggest otherwise is completely idiotic".

Also, while Keith is a fan of Edward R. Murrow, he does not consider himself the "reincarnation" of the man (another charge that that has been leveled on the WTNPH blog). Being a fan of someone BUT not emulating their life exactly (even if you happen to work in a similar news-related profession) does not make someone a fraud. When Keith Olbermann started Countdown he said...

Our charge for the immediate future is to stay out of the way of the news.... News is the news. We will not be screwing around with it... As times improve and the war [in Iraq] ends we will begin to introduce more and more elements familiar to my style.

Clearly Keith Olbermann does not view himself as a serious news reporter on par with Edward R. Murrow. He's a pundit who puts forth his opinion regarding the political news of the day. Frankly I believe Mr. Olbermann does a fantastic job in his chosen niche. He does not need to do a damn thing to gain credibility as a serious news reporter because he isn't trying to be a serious news reporter! He's a political pundit, nothing more -- not that there is anything wrong with that.

After Keith left MSNBC WTNPH claimed that Keith Olbermann's "nightmare has just begun", and that "never again will he ever get a format like this; a show in which he doesn't have to debate people [and can engage in] hit-and-run style journalism". Hey, I acknowledge that Current TV probably has a smaller audience than MSNBC, which has a smaller audience than Fox Nooz. I'm sure the Keith bashers will bring this up frequently following the re-launch of Countdown on the Al Gore (and Joel Hyatt) network. None-the-less WTNPH was dead wrong because KEITH IS BACK -- and I'm confident that his presence on the network will boost it's ratings significantly.

My prediction is that hiring Keith Olbermann was a smart move by the Current TV executives that will pay significant dividends.

Notation No. 1: in my last post on the subject of Keith Olbermann ("Welcome to My Shrine to Keith Olbermann") I mentioned the fact that Blogger WTNPH had (at that time) composed approximately 32 anti-Olbermann posts for his blog -- the total, according to my calculations, is now 33, the last having been posted on 6/18/2011. See below for a (what I believe is a complete) listing of the posts composed by WTNPH in which he bashes Keith Olbermann.

Notation No. 2: For the record this post, in tribute to the Worst Person segment, contains some hyperbole. I, for instance, do not truly believe that the re-launch of Countdown is "historic". As to what else is hyperbole versus what I genuinely believe... I'll leave that intentionally ambiguous.

Posts by WTNPH disparaging Keith Olbermann

02/14/2008: Coverage Coverage. MSNBC was wrong to utilize KO in covering the Republican primaries because he didn't "participate in a single interview of any Republican candidate, handler, or even a talking head". WTNPH concludes that "Olbermann didn't necessarily skew the coverage", but that he found his presence "at least a little awkward".
07/16/2008: According to WTNPH, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the most biased news program in television history". He claims that "It's starting to make me queasy".
11/29/2008: Dialogue/Soliloquy. WTNPH makes what will become a FREQUENT criticism of KO, which is that he only has on guests that agree with his POV.
01/16/2009: Frothier by the Dozens. WTNPH claims KO has "Bush derangement syndrome", which is term that "indicates a belief that some extreme criticisms of President Bush are of emotional origins rather than based on facts or logic". As if it is unthinkable that someone could be upset with GWB because he's a war criminal.
03/06/2009: Ready, Aim, Fire/Piss. KO is a "stooge" because he made "such a big deal over Governor Palin's interview at the slaughter-house". [Watch the Youtube video and see a clueless Palin "pardon" a turkey, and then continue the interview as turkeys are slaughtered behind her].
03/29/2009: War Children (Apologies to Jethro Tull). Bill O'Reilly is upset with KO's snipes. Regarding the O'Reilly/Olbermann feud WTNPH says, "It's all getting kind of nauseating".
04/17/2009: The Exception That Proves Diddly. WTNPH criticizes KO because he "gingerly and respectfully criticizes President Obama once or twice and this, THIS, is somehow proof that the numb-nuts ISN'T a partisan hack?"
04/19/2009: Tea With a Venom Chaser. KO and Janeane Garofalo are partisan hacks because they believe "every single person who participated in [the Tea Party] protests is nothing but a dangerous moron and a racist".
05/31/2009: Diluted Sins. WTNPH says KO lied when he suggested that David "Zurawick was either a blind ideologue or that he was somehow on the take from somebody". I am currently unclear as to whether or not this actually happened.
06/13/2009: At Least Ted Baxter was Lovable. WTNPH is positive KO literally believes himself to be Edward R. Murrow, and not only would Edward R. Murrow not approve, but he is "looking down and cringing, as we speak"... this despite the fact that I think KO would be the first to admit that he is a commentator and not a journalist.
06/15/2009: Paper-Thin Skin/Comparison. WTNPH says "Edward R. Murrow never took to slandering media writers who criticized him, unlike Keith Olbermann". No specific incident where KO committed the crime WTHPH is convicting him of is cited.
07/04/2009: Haunts of Vintage Wrestling. KO doesn't speak for 40% of "us".
09/23/2009: Book/Dog Ends. WTNPH compares Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity. Olbermann is starting to irritate him more because he uses "crude ad hominems".
09/27/2009: A La Egypt and Israel. KO "still on occasion puts Mr. O'Reilly on his worst person list".
11/05/2009: Mirror, Mirror on the Stall. KO displays hypocrisy AND the partisanship when he berates Chris Wallace for interviewing Rush Limbaugh and asking "powder puff" questions. Because KO is guilty of the same thing.
08/13/2010: From the Bottom of the Deck, Book Two. WTNPH accuses KO of "indiscriminate and hastily assembled charges of racism" because he discusses a Politico article titled "Ethics cases raise racial questions".
09/13/2010: Miscellaneous 24. KO points out that there were two mosques in the World Trade Center. For this reason KO "isn't always full of shit".
10/02/2009: Strange Weed-Fellows. WTNPH is fatigued by all of KO's special comments.
10/22/2009: The Thinner the Skin, The Bigger the Lap-Dog. WTHPH criticizes KO for defending himself (and Rachel Maddow) against charges from George HW Bush that they are "sick puppies".
06/14/2010: Olbermann's Conservative/Lesbian Counterpart. WTNPH disses conservative radio host Tammy Bruce by comparing her to KO. Both are flat-out cowards because they allow for no dissent.
08/17/2010: A Response to W-Dervish's Impassioned Defense of Mr. Olbermann. WTNPH attacks me for defending KO.
09/26/2010: Denying the Sky. Partisan radio and cable-news stooges (of which Keith Olbermann is one) never, EVER, admit that they're wrong.
10/18/2010: Miscellaneous 32. Keith Olbermann is a guttersnipe for not going after Democrat Jack Conway for his Rand Paul/Aqua Buddha negative political ad.
11/15/2010: There's More Than One Way to Skin a Critic. Ted Koppel criticizes KO, and WTNPH criticizes KO for his criticism of TK. WTNPH sarcastically says TK "had the unmitigated audacity to criticize Olbermann's shameless advocacy/preaching to the choir form of journalism".
11/23/2010: Miscellaneous 42 (Murkowski, Olbermann, Hannity). WTNPH criticizes KO for not reporting from the field.
12/06/2010: How 'Bout a Hall of Fame For Hyperbole? WTNPH criticizes the "Worst Person in the World" segment because KO's choice of worst person is "bizarre". WTNPH's conclusion is that KO doesn't have "even one ounce of consistency in his bones".
12/11/2010: Note to Mr. Olbermann 2. WTNPH criticizes KO for placing Brit Hume and Chris Wallace on his "Worst Person in the World" list. Chris Wallace, claims WTNPH, was an innocent bystander.
12/27/2010: Note to Mr. Olbermann 3. WTNPH criticizes KO because he was against BHO's "compromise" with the Republicans that extended the bush tax cuts.
12/28/2010: Revisionism Hannity-Style. Post is a criticism of Sean Hannity, but he ends it by saying, "[Hannity] is far worse than Olbermann... and Olbermann is over the top partisan".
01/20/2011: Hm, If He's the Worst. WTNPH suggests KO's "Worst Person in the World" segment (which he calls "idiotic shtick") might inspire a lunatic to kill said "worst person".
03/11/2011: A Little Less From Moore, Please 2.

received

05/15/2011: Devolving From the North. WTNPH actually praises Lawrence O'Donnell, saying a story he did was one "Olbermann would have NEVER done". The story suggested that Sarah Palin was a decent governor that only went off the rails after being selected as McCain's VP.
6/18/2011: Miscellaneous 82. WTNPH likes Lawrence O'Donnell but not Keith Olbermann. WTNPH dislikes that KO is "always dropping the bomb that he went to Cornell, [his] comical B-caliber movie rants (i.e. special comments), [his] thin-skin that rivals that of O'Reilly, [and] the fact that he more closely resembles Howard Beale than Edward R. Murrow".

Right-Wingers Don't Understand the First Amendment

2011-06-15T14:27:00.004-05:00

[Corporations] are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process as we go forward ~ Russ Feingold (b. 3/2/1953) an American politician from Wisconsin who served as a Democratic party member of the U.S. Senate from 1993 to 2011, in a speech on the Citizens United Case delivered at the Fighting Bob Fest on 9/10/2010.

The First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Move to Amend says: On 1/21/2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

w-dervish says: I agree with the folks at "Move to Amend". Clearly the Founders did not intended for corporations to be considered people. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned us that inherited wealth is incompatible with democracy, he also warned us of the dangers of allowing corporations to become too powerful. Now I'd wager that most people believe one of the functions of the The Supreme Court is to determine if laws are Constitutional (if there is a question). It's one of the checks and balances set up by the Founders, right?

Actually the power to rule laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president "unconstitutional" is NOT a power granted to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. The SCOTUS granted itself this power with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision. A horrified Thomas Jefferson declared that the ruling by the Marshall court paved the way for Judicial tyranny. Specifically Jefferson said...

If ... the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government ... then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so (suicide pact). ...The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819).

This is exactly what the Roberts Court did on 1/21/2010 when they ruled in favor of "Citizens United" (a conservative political organization). The Conservatives on the court molded the First Amendment -- exactly as if it were a mere thing of wax -- changing it's meaning so that it pleased them (and the corporations they serve). This act, as predicted by Jefferson, edged our nation closer to plutocracy. It seems conservatives have no problem what-so-ever with judicial activism when the Conservative judges rule to further empower the wealthy elites.

What the Supreme Court did, specifically, was to strike down "a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting electioneering communications". McCain–Feingold said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. Citizens United thought they could bypass McCain–Feingold with a "documentary" trashing Hillary Clinton. Hillary the Movie was set to air on cable TV as an on-demand movie when the FEC objected and filed a lawsuit. The airing of the documentary was stopped when a lower court ruled that, under McCain–Feingold, Citizens United could not broadcast their film 30 days before a primary election.

But the douches at Citizens United insisted that their film wasn't electioneering (and thus exempt from McCain-Feingold) because, "the movie did not say explicitly that people should vote for or against Clinton". When the CU a-holes decided to petition the SCOTUS -- Judge Roberts and his Right-wing buddies agreed to hear the case (instead of laughing and turning them down as they should have). Not only that, but Judge Roberts said, "I'll do you one better". Instead of ruling on whether or not the Hillary-bashing movie was OK to air whenever (because it didn't tell people who to vote for and was thus not a political ad), Roberts decided the court should decide if corporations should be able to air any political ad, anytime, and spend as much money as they liked on them.

What Roberts proposed what that his court should overturn decades of settled case law, something he specifically promised he would not do during his confirmation hearings. Former "Law & Order" actor, TN Senator, and failed 2008 presidential contender Fred Thompson thinks Roberts, "was very forthright in explaining that he would not tell the senators how he was going to vote but that he would follow the law and the intent of the framers". Fred believes Roberts has done just that, but Fred is wrong. Roberts lied in his Senate confirmation hearings and should be impeached.

Justice Scalia, another corporate fascist like his buddy Roberts, authored a concurrence in which he states that the First Amendment, "never shows why the freedom of speech that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form". Scalia also "argued that the first amendment was written in terms of speech, not speakers", and that "it's text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker".

Both Roberts and Scalia are members of the Federalist Society, which is "an organization of conservatives and libertarians seeking reform of the current American legal system in accordance with a textualist and/or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution". The stated goals of this organization are, of course, total bullshit. Their real goal is to reinterpret the Constitution so that the law favors the wealthy elites (even more so than it currently does).

Justice Thomas also concurred, even though the hypocrite supposedly believes "America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights". But he was talking about his opposition to Affirmative action. So, when the government grants additional rights of groups of individuals it is WRONG if the purpose is to promote equal opportunity and address existing discrimination, but when it does the same in regard to groups of individuals who get together to form a corporation -- it's the bee's knees?

Conservatives claim that the considerations afforded by Affirmative action amount to special privileges, while people who get together to form a corporation are not asking for anything special, only that they not be stripped of their first amendment rights. But the fact is, they are not. These people retain their individual right to free speech, but do not gain the special privilege of a free speech group right. Clarence Thomas may be a hypocritical dipshit, but he's right (even if he conveniently forgot when he wrote his Citizens United concurrence), that the Bill of the Bill of Rights affirms individual rights, not group rights. There is ONLY ONE group that the First Amendment mentions, and that is The Press. All other groups can suck it.

Individuals have the right to associate with other individuals, but they do not then gain additional rights to speak as a group under the First Amendment. Only the Press does, which is why the Founders specifically mention it. Seeing as any specific press organization is also a corporation, why would the Framers single out the press if they were already covered (by virtue of being a corporation)? Clearly the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to individuals and not groups. Neither did the Framers intend for corporations to be able to spend unlimited amounts of money influencing elections or buying off politicians. Congress is within it's rights to pass laws restricting campaign spending by these entities.

I agree that "judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules. They apply them". John Roberts said this during his confirmation hearing. Then he did the exact opposite when he ruled in favor of Citizens United, changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment. Both of the justices appointed by President doofus made similar statements before Congress, and because fibbing to Congress is illegal, both should be impeached. Alito, in his confirmation hearing said, "courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions", but when Roberts said prior judicial decisions (regarding this issue) were a "mistake" and that he was obligated not to repeat them, Alito concurred.

In elections whichever candidate outspends the other generally wins. This is according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit, nonpartisan research group that tracks money in politics and their effect on elections. In a 11/5/2008 article examining the 2008 election, CRP reports that "Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever". Their research shows that "in 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races... the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning".

According to the 2/17/2011 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow Show, "In 2010, post-Citizens United, 7 of the 10 top outside spending groups in the election were all Right-wing. The Chamber of Commerce, both the Karl Rove groups, the American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security -- all of these Right-wing groups. The only non-conservative groups that cracked the top 10 were the public employees union, the SEIU, and the teachers union. That's it".

The Sunlight Foundation confirms that spending on the Republican side outpaces spending on the Democratic side. Their 2010 report says, "the big change... is that independent groups are now spending more money on influencing the election than political parties", pointing out that "the outside groups are supplanting traditional party spending largely on the Republican side of the aisle. There are currently eight outside groups that have each spent at least $2 million exclusively on aiding Republican candidates. These groups are American Crossroads, American Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund, The 60 Plus Association, Americans for Job Security, Club for Growth Action Fund, Club for Growth and Tea Party Express".

I say you are naive in the extreme if you think this ruling will not allow corporations to get the politicians THEY WANT elected. Corporations will run adds FOR the politicians who dance to their tune and AGAINST those who do not. Obviously Righties believe that "free speech" is dependant on how much money you have. The more money you have, the more FREE speech you can buy. Those of us who don't adhere to corporatism recognize that this ruling is straight up fascism. Most people don't even bother voting. Of those that do vote, some of them will vote for the politicians the ads tell them to vote for. Outside groups wouldn't be spending these huge sums of money if this were not true.

My conclusion is that money is corrosive to the political process. We need to reduce the amount of money spent on elections, not increase it. Money is not speech, corporations are not people, and the first amendment only applies to individuals (and the press). For this reason we must re-elect Barack Obama so that he can appoint the next one or two Supreme Court Judges and move the court away from the radical Right. Hopefully then this very bad ruling can be overturned.

Conservative Q&A Re: The Citizens United Decision

The following questions and assertions were made during a heated debate I engaged in with a Conservative on another blog. This debate was what prompted me to compose this blog post. I've written on the topic before, but this post greatly expands on my prior posts...

Conservative position: A law requiring shareholders in a corporation be allowed to vote before any corporate money is spent supporting a political candidate would be wrong because shareholders all CHOOSE to invest on a corporation. Their choice to invest means they approve of the company's policies (including it's political support).

My response: This claim is utter nonsense. The primary reason people invest in corporations is to make money, not political statements. In deciding whether or not to invest an individual usually looks into past performance of the corporation, they usually do not investigate the political positions of the corporation, which are not a part of the company's Prospectus. A law requiring a vote by stockholders (the OWNERS of the corporation) before any money is spend for political reasons is completely reasonable. If everyone who buys stock is assumed to agree with the CEOs politically, then what is the harm in holding a vote? The only reason anyone would oppose such a law is because they want corporate CEOs to be able to spend corporate money for political reasons -- even if such expenditures would be OPPOSED by their stockholders.

Conservative position: The New York Times is a corporation. Putting in the censorship regime you favor would gag any political opinions from being expressed in it.

My response: The First Amendment says that no laws shall be passed abridging the freedom of the press. the New York Times is a press organization and thus political opinions expressed in it can not legally be gagged. Furthermore, I do not favor a "censorship regime"; I favor adherence to the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment guarantees individual rights. It does not guarantee group rights for corporations or any other entity (with the exception of the press).

Conservative position: Do you honestly support the idea that caused the court decision in the first place... the government gag on a film [Hillary: the movie] people made that was critical of a US senator?

My response: I fully support reasonable laws governing how our elections are conducted. Citizens United was not "gagged" in regards to Hillary: The Movie. They were only prohibited from airing their "documentary" during a certain period of time. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) said that "broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election" are prohibited. They were free to air their "documentary" any other time.

Conservative position: What ever happened to, if you don't like what someone says, ignore it? We need to stop looking for excuses to censor and to bar people from the political process.

Conservative position: I am not looking to censor or bar any individual person from the political process. I simply believe we should follow the First Amendment as written. The First Amendment protects individual rights, not group rights. Corporations (aside from press corporations) do not have rights under the First Amendment.

As for your argument that political ads can be ignored... this clearly does not happen. Why else would politicians spend so damn much to get elected? Why do they hire slick PR firms to carefully craft their message? Money has a HUGE impact on elections. This is a FACT that cannot be denied. Politically informed individuals may ignore political commercials they know are pure spin, but the average citizen is most often not informed enough to be able to identify what is true and what is spin (or an outright lie).

If you agree with the Citizens United decision it is my opinion that you do not believe in democracy. Only a supporter of plutocracy would say our election results should be determined by who spends the most.

United States Fails to Nab Top Honors in International Competition. Disappointed Republicans Blame President Obama

2011-05-26T15:14:00.001-05:00

I have some very strong feelings, the most important of which at the moment is campaign finance reform because its tentacles reach into every other issue. I fear we're getting closer to a plutocracy than we want to, and I believe that deep down the people want to do something about that ~ Warren Beatty (b. 3/30/1937) an American actor, producer, screenwriter and director who has received four Golden Globe and fourteen Academy Award nominations, winning one for Best Director in 1982.

On 4/12/2011 the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) announced the "winners" in an international economic competition. Shocked Republican politicians could not believe that the United States had not only not won top honors, but actually came in fourth behind Chile, Mexico and Turkey! According to the OECD's report, titled "Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators", income inequality is greater in those three countries. Disappointed Republicans vowed to work harder to ensure that next time we come in first place.

"This is really embarrassing", a dismayed Paul Ryan was reported to have said. "The most powerful nation in the world was bested by Chile", an incredulous Ryan continued. "Ayn Rand must be rolling over in her grave". The crestfallen Ryan further remarked that, "this is another reason why we need to adopt my budget. The USA can and should be number one!".

Other Republican suggestions for propelling the US into the number one position included abolishing the minimum wage and the passage of a national right to work law. When asked what he thought about the minimum wage Kentucky Senator Randal Paul said, "I think the question you have to ask is -- does the minimum wage, in the long run, have negative social effects? Do we want a higher standard of living for the working poor and middle class at the expense of higher profits for the employers?". Mr. Paul was adamant that the answer to that question is "no".

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said, "I whole heartedly agree with my colleague, the honorable Mr. Paul. The lower classes have had a free ride for far too long. Their wages are out of step with what workers in other countries receive. This is why I've introduced a bill designed to neuter the unions and thus cut wages. Lower wages for workers means more profit for the owners".

"We pretend to revere the Founders for the benefit of the rabble", Texas Representative Kevin Brady revealed in a moment of unusual Republican honesty. "Is inherited wealth incompatible with Democracy as Jefferson claimed? I would say yes. But we're a Republic, not a Democracy", Brady explained. "This is why my party -- with the help of a few conservative Democrats -- introduced the Bipartisan Bill to Permanently Repeal Federal Estate Tax on March 30th of this year".

Speaker of the House John Boehner blamed President Obama for America's failure to win the OECD prize, remarking, "You can thank the Republicans lying about pursuing a jobs agenda for our coming in 4th. If we had actually done something about jobs like we promised we may have come in 5th place".

Postscript: Congress was recently evacuated due to what was first believed to be a gas leak. It was later discovered that the gas that was leaking was actually an aerosolized version of a truth serum drug. It is unknown at this time how the gas was released into the ventilation system. The Capitol Police are investigating.

These quotations were obtained by staff researcher Janeane Garner of the Progressive Ideology Foundation (PIF) in on-the-street interviews with the members of Congress following the evacuation. Representatives of the Congresspersons quoted have since disavowed the quotations. PIF is a US-based progressive think tank which is also known as "Liberal Headquarters".

A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural ~ Thomas Jefferson (4/13/1743 to 7/4/1826) 3rd President of the United States (3/4/1801 to 3/4/1809), founding father, and principal author of the Declaration of Independence.

[The estate tax] is a tenet of Marxism ~ Christine O'Donnell (b. 8/27/1969) perennial candidate who lost the November 2010 U.S. Senate election in Delaware to Democrat Chris Coons -- by a margin of 57% to 40%; as quoted in a 10/13/2010 debate with her opponent.

Throwing A Liberal Pundit Under the Bus to Bash The Gipper

2011-05-22T18:43:00.003-05:00

Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference ~ Mort Sahl (b. 5/11/1927) a Canadian-born American comedian and actor who occasionally wrote jokes for speeches delivered by President John F. Kennedy.

I'm a diehard Liberal who loves to worship partisan Liberal pundits who reaffirm what I already believe. Which is why I like Rachel Maddow, despite the fact that she's a partisan stooge, liar, and dumbass to boot. But I'm willing to overlook all that because she hates Ronald Reagan as much as I do. On the 5/12/2011 TRMS, Rachel impugned the Gipper's reputation with disgusting innuendo suggesting that (in the late 40's and early 50's) Ronald Reagan was a red baiter sympathetic to McCarthyism.

How do we know this? Because Rachel Maddow said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness" before The House Un-American Activities Committee (HCUA) on 10/23/1947. In her setup to her uncalled for Gipper bash, Rachel Maddow said...

...you may remember the House on American Activities Committee. Part of that was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry, dragging in writers and actors and anyone he thought might have a whiff of communism on them. Remember those hearings? All the people who turned in their friends who then got blacklisted as communists and some of them got sent to prison. A bunch of them never worked again.

The problem with this statement is that Joseph McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC, which was a House committee. McCarthy had his own Commie witch hunt committee in the Senate: The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). That committee was looking into imaginary Commie infiltration in Washington, not Hollywood. It also didn't begin this task until 1950, two years after the House began ruining the careers of Hollywood types for no good reason -- other than to scare the public into voting Republican.

Needless to say, the Maddow haters pounced. David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun described Maddow's words as "ignorant snark". According to Zuarwik, MSNBC is the "most biased and propagandist television news outlet in America", so it's no surprise that he gleefully tore into Maddow, declaring that she was "guilty and then some" of re-writing history, and that she's a dummy because this was something she should have learned in sixth grade civics. Will Hart of the blog "Contra O'Reilly" suggested that Rachel Maddow and Michele Bachmann both need to stay after school (and then he added an "LOL").

Will Hart is probably going to be muy surprised (if he reads this), but I'm going to concede that Rachel Maddow was historically inaccurate in her description of the relationship between HUAC and Joe McCarthy. I am, however, inclined to believe that she misspoke, and that what she said isn't what she meant. I certainly do not believe that she is an ignoramus on par with Michelle Bachmann (who believes the "Founding fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery"), which is why I defended her on Will's blog.

Later, in preparation for my own post on the topic, I re-read the quote and realized my previous interpretation of it was wrong. Which is a little embarrassing, considering how I posted numerous times explaining that when Rachel said McCarthy was a "part of that" she meant that he and HUAC were both a part of the Congressional communist witch hunts that were in vogue at the time. But then she goes on to suggest that it was McCarthy who was dragging in the Hollywood types.

This is why I've decided I'm going to throw Rachel Maddow under the bush and blame her for this. If she hadn't misspoke then I wouldn't have been placed in the position where I felt I needed to defend her. I usually watch the program every night, although I don't recall if I missed any programs since her "gaffe" (and therefore missed her issue a clarification or correction). A Google search and careful examination of The Maddow Blog did not result in my finding any clarifications or corrections. But, according to The Maddow Blog, "We read our mail", so I shot them at email at the address provided (see below).

I'll also blame the haters on the Right and in the Middle (like Will Hart and David Zurawik) who were so quick to take out the knives and have at Ms. Maddow. Although, of the two, I think Will Hart was the worst offender. Because in addition to pointing out that Rachel misspoke (which isn't at all how he worded it) he also claimed that when Rachel said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness" before HUAC, she was implying that Regan was down with McCarthyism -- and he turned in his colleagues and gave up names to save his own skin. Will Hart insists there is ZERO evidence that Reagan did anything of the sort.

The truth of the matter is that Reagan did names names and he did use the HUAC hearings to slime SAG (and other Hollywood) union members who wanted better pay and benefits. It is also a FACT that Reagan testified at those hearings as a "friendly witness". As I pointed out on Will's blog, I believe Reagan was a crap president who deserves to be pissed on (metaphorically speaking). But I'm going to hold off revealing the details until my next post because I want that information to take center stage -- instead of being revealed secondary to this unflattering account of the "Rachel Maddow gaffe".

"Reagan... is the devil in the minds of most progressives and the ends ALWAYS justify the means", says Will Hart. No Will, Reagan isn't "the Devil", but he is the absolute worst POTUS ever. Of that there is no doubt in my mind. Aside from getting the relationship between McCarthy and HUAC wrong, the rest of Rachel Maddow's story was absolutely correct. Ronald Reagan didn't fight Communism in Hollywood, he implied certain elements within SAG (and other unions) were pinko Commies because they advocated striking for higher pay and benefits, an act I find utterly despicable.

My Message to TRMS

Subject: 5/12/2011 TRMS Huckabee/Reagan Story
email sent to: Rachel@msnbc.com on 5/22/2011 at 3:36pm CT

Hello. The purpose of this email is to inquire about a story TRMS covered on 5/12/2011. First, I'd like to let you know that I am contacting you because, as a loyal fan and regular viewer of the Rachel Maddow program -- the integrity of the show is something I feel is very important.

The story I'm inquiring about is the Mike Huckabee cartoons that re-write Ronald Reagan's history of "fighting Communism" in Hollywood. While Rachel was entirely correct that Reagan did appear as a friendly witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee, I believe she mischaracterized Senator Joseph McCarthy's relationship with that committee.

On the program Rachel said (quoting from the transcript), "Part of that was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry, dragging in writers and actors and anyone he thought might have a whiff of communism on them". Senator McCarthy couldn't have dragged anyone into those hearings, because he was a Senator and not a member of that House committee.

Senator McCarthy, as chairman of the The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, red baited the living heck out of Washington (not Hollywood). He accused federal employees of being communist infiltrators or of being sympathetic to communism. As far as I know he didn't have anything to do with the Hollywood red baiting.

Can you tell me if Rachel will be issuing either a clarification or a correction to counter the criticisms of David Zurawik of the Baltimore Sun (there are probably others, but his is the article that was brought to my attention)? Mr. Zurawik questioned Rachel's integrity (and her intelligence) in a 5/13/2011 article titled, "Rachel Maddow: American history as ignorant snark". It is my feeling that these allegations need to be answered.

If a clarification or correction has already been made I haven't been able to find it (I've looked).

Thank you, a loyal (and concerned) fan. [my real name inserted here].

Further Reading

Not Even a Hedgehog: The stupidity of Ronald Reagan by Christopher Hitchens, 6/7/2004

Welcome to My Shrine to Keith Olbermann

2011-05-18T21:02:00.003-05:00

Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear — fear not of disease but of Deductibles? ... What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life of each citizen? ...Government's essential role [should be to] facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours... ~ Keith Olbermann in an program-length special comment, "Health Care Reform: Saving American Lives", Countdown 10/7/2009.

Even if you aren't a huge Keith Olbermann like I am, you may have heard that Keith abruptly parted ways with MSNBC on 1/21/2011, ending his highly rated news-commentary program for unspecified reasons. From what I've heard differences of opinion with management were to blame.

When Keith and MSNBC agreed on 2/16/2007 that Countdown would continue to air through the 2012 presidential election -- MSNBC president Phil Griffin proclaimed, "Countdown is our signature program" and that, "Keith Olbermann is at the core of MSNBC’s current success". With this statement Phil Griffin appeared to acknowledge the fact that MSNBC would be nothing without Olbermann. Before Countdown MSNBC had settled on the idea that they should try to be another CNN. It wasn't until after Keith's program proved so successful that MSNBC decided they should become a Left-leaning alternative to Fox.

Given the fact that the success and growth of MSNBC can be directly attributed to Keith Olbermann, I think Mr. Griffin exhibited extremely poor judgment and total lack of appreciation for everything Keith has done for the network. According to Nielsen, Countdown was the network's top-rated program (with 1.1 million viewers). But, instead of doing whatever it took to keep his star happy, Mr. Griffin was apparently looking for an excuse to jettison Keith. Things came to a head after Keith was suspended for making campaign contributions to several Democrats. Phil Griffin told Keith's manager that they were "at war".

Personally I didn't have a problem with Olbermann's donations. Mr. Olbermann isn't, nor does he pretend to be, a non-partial facts-sans-opinion political reporter. Countdown was a political-commentary/opinion program. Phil Griffin realized that the success of Countdown was due to Keith's decidedly Left-leaning opinions, which is why MSNBC added Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to their lineup. It is also why they replaced Keith with Lawrence O'Donnell -- a self-described "practical European socialist" who reportedly said, "I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals".

One of the rumors regarding Keith's departure was that the "Comcast honchos did not like Keith's defiance and the way he played in the sandbox" (TMZ 1/22/2011). Comcast purchased a controlling share (51%) in NBC/Universal (MSNBC's parent company) on 1/28/2011. An LA Time Business article from 1/21/2011 says, "conspiracy theorists [are] speculating that Olbermann jumped before he was pushed by his new bosses".

The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger needed approval from the FCC due to the huge media monopoly the union created. The lone FCC disenter, Democrat Michael Copps said he thought the deal was "damaging and potentially dangerous" because it "opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet [and creates] the potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, [and] access fees to reach end users". His conclusion was that, "a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real".

Given the fact that the MSNBC lineup is still very much Left-leaning, I'm going to conclude that Keith did not leave MSNBC because the Comcast bigwigs wanted him gone. That said, I oppose monopolies and am very disappointed that the FCC approved this merger. I believe this merger threatens Net Neutrality and that Mr. Copps' fears will prove to be accurate.

Some of the haters have stated that the reason they dislike Olbermann was because he has a "big ego". According to what I've read so does Phil Griffin, which is why they clashed. It's my opinion that Phil Griffin (for this reason) was a poor choice to lead MSNBC. Whether or not Keith has a "big ego" -- I frankly do not care. The only thing that mattered to me was that I found his program highly enjoyable. When I watched Countdown I was convinced that Keith is a very principaled, moral and humble person.

I based this conclusion on a number of observations, the primary one being his strong advocation for government intervention in making sure all Americans have access to quality health care. Keith shared with his viewers his dismay that the only reason he was able to pay for his father's health care needs was because of his good fortune. He made it clear he is truly concerned that so many Americans go bankrupt or die for purely financial reasons, and how wrong it is that health care insurance is a for-profit industry (when, in every other industuralized nation health care insurance is not-for profit). This is why Keith used his MSNBC platform to raise money for free health clinics.

Keith Olbermann is a man with deeply held convictions regarding right and wrong. Like myself, he has sided with the political party that best represents his worldview. The Republican Party opposed (and continues to oppose) the social safety net programs championed by (a majority of) the Democratic Party. The Republican Party hates Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, and any flavor of health care insurance reform (as illustrated by the Paul Ryan budget).

Because these things require that the wealthy elites whom they represent pay slightly more in taxes. European socialism, which has worked so well for our friends across the Atlantic (citizens of those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical bills) is somehow "evil". I categorically reject the notion that a higher standard of living for everybody is "evil". Over the years (of watching Countdown) Keith has made it clear to me that we are on the same team. This is the team that opposes oligarchy and is working to build a "we" society, not a "me" society.

This brings me to the reason why I composed this post and put up my webpage dedicated to all things Keith. A Moderate Independent blogger I've mentioned here before is one of the Olbermann haters I mentioned earlier. It appears as though one of the primary objectives of this blogger is to rentlessly bash Keith Olbermann. According to this individual (who I shall henceforth refer to as WTNPH), "Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the most biased news program in television history". Biased in favor of a government which acts in the interest of a majority of it citizens and not just the wealthy elites, I say. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.

I did a Google site search and counted a total of 32 anti-Olbermann posts on his blog. The first was on 02/14/2008 and the latest (but undoubtedly not the last) was posted on 05/15/2011. Also, after examining the 32 posts Google returned, I counted a total of 26 unique insults WTNPH hurled at Mr. Olbermann (see list below). Is it just me, or does anyone else find the shear volume of disparraging posts and insults more than a little odd? Especially given that many of the posts reference events on specific episodes? Clearly WTNPH is (or was before it stopped airing on MSNBC) a regular viewer. There are a number of Fox News pundits which I do not like -- which is why I don't watch them (not very often, in any case). So why is WTNPH obsessed with Keith Olbermann?

He watches, and criticizes Fox pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but to nowhere near the extent he criticizes Mr. Olbermann. In fact, early on (back when I did not realize the exact extent to which he loathed Mr. Olbermann) I made some comments defending Keith. That resulted in a post critical of both Keith AND myself (8/27/2010). WTNPH accused me of not being a free thinker, and asserted that I was a part of "the problem" due to the fact that I only listened to Olbermann -- because he reaffirms what I already believe.

To these accusations I say, baloney! While it is true that like Olbermann because I agree with him (or he agrees with me), I also watch and listen to other commentators who invite guests on their programs who disagree with them. People like Thom Hartmann (who WTNPH also bashed). I believe discussion, debate and independant investigation are all valuable methods of arriving at the truth. And I also agree that it is a "big part of our problem these days" that some people only listen to political commentators they agree with -- and never consider alternate points of view. Especially given the fact that a lot of these pundits are lying to them (Fox Nooze scumbags).

By the way, the "shrine" to Keith is partially tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually "worship" him. Also, the reference to my "man-crush" comes from a comment made by a rabid Liberal-hating Conservative that frequents WTNPH's blog (a particularly fulsome individual who calls himself "Rusty S"). He accused me of having a "man-crush" on Keith Olbermann (which I do not). I simply admire Keith (for the previously mentioned reasons) and look forward to his return on Al Gore's Current TV on Monday June 20th 7pm Central time.

After Keith was "fired" I'm sure many on the Right rejoiced. On 1/21/2011 Rusty commented, "Looks like Olbermann Leaned Foward and fell out of the building. Comcast takes over NBC, next day Keithie is gone" (and then he added, "Is fat Ed next?"). Well, now "Keithie" is BACK, so in your face! Not only that, but I heard MSNBC paid him his full salary of 7 million dollars for each of the two years remaining on his contract. If MSNBC had a legitimate reason to "fire" Keith, would they have paid him 14 million to NOT do his show?

Regarding his move to Current TV Mr. Olbermann has said, "I wanted to go to a place where journalistic integrity and analytical honesty would never be compromised by corporate synergy. A place where no one would ever proclaim the ultimate dishonesty: that balancing a lie for every truth was somehow fair. I found that place in Current TV. And even though they told me I'd be in charge, and they gave me a title and an equity stake... I have still been delightfully startled at the free hand I've been given to assemble the finest staff ... in television news".

So, mark your calendars for an event you most surely will not want to miss. You can tape Lawrence O'Donnell's program. The new program will still be called "Countdown with Keith Olbermann". According to Keith the show will "retain it's edge and the pointedness of it's commentary". This sounds like a program that WTNPH will "love to hate" even more (I suspect he'll be rivetted to his set every weeknight at 8pm Eastern time). In the meantime, please enjoy my shrine to Keith Olbermann. Please feel free to share your thoughts regarding this post and my shrine. To return to the shrine in the future please click on the picture of Keith Olbermann on my sidebar.

Insults hurled at Keith Olbermann by WTNPH

Blankety-blank (10/22/2009)
Blowhard (10/02/2009)
Bush derangement syndrome, sufferer of (01/16/2009)
Coward, Flat-out (06/14/2010)
Cowardly (08/17/2010)
Creep, Total (5/31/2009)
Creepy (10/22/2009)
Dishonest (08/17/2010)
Full of shit (09/13/2010)
Guttersnipe (10/18/2010)
Ideologue (05/31/2009)
Mean-spirited (01/16/2009, 08/17/2010)
Nasty (08/17/2010)
Numb-nuts (04/17/2009)
Paranoid (10/22/2009)
Partisan Hack (4/17/2009)
Partisan, Over the top (12/28/2010)
Partisan Stooge (4/19/2009, 09/26/2010)
Sanctimonious (12/28/2010)
Self-righteous (12/28/2010)
Shameless (11/15/2010)
SOB (11/5/2009)
Son of a bitch (5/31/2009, 6/13/2009)
Stooge (3/06/2009)
Thin-skinned, Increasingly (11/15/2010)
Thin-skinned lunatic (10/22/2009)

Further Reading

Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: The Republican Response -- a work of satire by TribeApologist, The Daily Kos 10/8/2009
Health care reform: Saving American lives -- An extended special comment by Keith Olbermann, Transcript from the 10/07/2009 airing of "Coundown".

YouTube Video: Senator Al Franken opposed the NBC/Comcast Merger; warns that the merger will lead to higher bills for consumers.

The Bald Wig-Wearing Frog Receives a Caller

2011-05-14T16:13:00.005-05:00

One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president, and that one word is 'to be prepared' ~ Dan Quayle (b. 2/4/1947) 44th Vice President of the United States (1/20/1989 to 1/20/1993); a comment made on 12/6/1989, as confirmed by Snopes.

Even though the bald wig-wearing frog had not expected to awaken the next morning, he did. The frog's eyes opened to the sound of a loud thumping at his door. Unable to rise, he laid there until whoever was knocking gave up and went away. Most likely someone come to make fun of him and his wig. He would not have answered the door even if he could have.

That evening the frog thought, "this is it, tomorrow will not come, thank goodness. My miserable life will be over at last". What lays beyond this life the bald wig-wearing frog did not know, but he was convinced it had to be better than his current existence. "Wake up!", he heard someone shout. He bolted upright. Surprised, the wig-wearing frog thought, "I must be dead, because there is no way I could possibly have had the strength to do that".

The room was dark. And empty. There was no one there that could have yelled at him. But he was sure he had heard someone scream. "Open up, it's your uncle Kermit!", the voice on the other side of the door shouted. I must be hallucinating, the bald wig-wearing frog thought. I do have an uncle Kermit, but he went to Hollywood more than 30 years ago and hasn't been seen in these parts since. But the pounding continued, and it appeared as though this time whoever it was wasn't going to give up.

The wig-wearing frog weakly rose from his bed and shuffled in the direction of the front entrance. The knocking was still in progress when he got there -- so he opened the door a crack. Standing in front of him, visible due to the brightly shining moon, was an amphibian wearing a green felt collar around his neck. Was this his uncle Kermit? There was no way he could be sure, seeing as he had never actually met him. "You must be my nephew Larry", croaked the strange amphibian standing before him. "Yes, my name is Larry", answered the wig-wearing frog. "Are you my uncle Kermit?" Larry the frog asked suspiciously.

"Trust me, Kid. I AM your uncle Kermit", the strange amphibian said, pushing the door open. "In any case, what happened to you? I've never seen a frog in such an emaciated state!". "I'm sorry, but you have the wrong frog", Larry said. "I have an uncle Kermit but he went to Hollywood decades ago. Frogs don't live decades, so there is no possibility that you could be him". Larry attempted to shut the door but the false Kermit prevented him from doing so. "You have a point", Kermit admitted. "Listen, Larry. I can prove to you that I'm your uncle Kermit".

After proving they were indeed related Larry invited his uncle in. "I heard you were wearing a ridiculous-looking wig, and there it is", Kermit remarked, starring at Larry's head. "I also heard that you haven't been seen around the pond in weeks. Your friends are very worried about you Larry". "I don't see how that could possibly be the case, since I do not have any friends", Larry replied. "Well, the frogs I talked to said they were friends of yours, although they did have quite a few very derogatory things to say about you. I can see why you'd disown them if they were your friends. Something I don't understand, however, is why you look the way you do. There didn't appear to be any kind of fly shortage down at the pond. So why are do you appear to be so undernourished?".

"I was very sick for quite some time", Larry lied. "I couldn't eat anything that I wouldn't immediately throw up. I only started feeling better this morning". "I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better", Kermit commented, looking concerned. "Shall we go down to the pond and get you something to eat?". "I guess so", Larry answered. And so they did. Luckily there were no other frogs in the vicinity, even though he could hear them croaking in the distance. Larry did not feel like enduring any ridicule at the moment. After choking down some much needed sustenance he felt much better. "So, what brings you back to the pond after all these years", Larry queried his uncle.

"I've decided to retire from acting and get into politics", Kermit responded. "I'm going to run for pond president". "I didn't even know the pond had a president", said Larry. "Indeed it does Larry. Not only that, but you're going to be my Vice President". "Huh? Isn't being elected to public office something like winning a popularity contest?", a bewildered Larry retorted. "Since you've talked to them, you already know that my former friends do not like me".

"I'm the one that needs to win the popularity contest Larry. I need you to be my Joe Biden". "Who's he?", Larry asked. "He's the Vice President in the human world", Kermit explained. "The news media covers him with stories suggesting he is a high-functioning doofus". "So that's why you believe I'm the right frog for the position?", Larry replied, clearly insulted.

"Indeed. But there is no need to be insulted nephew. This is the way it works in politics. When two people (or frogs) run for president and vice president one of them is treated by the media as if he were functionally retarded, which may or may not be true. In Joe Biden's case it is not. He is actually a very intelligent man. In any case, the purpose of this is to put the public at ease. Most of them, being morons themselves, won't vote for a politician they believe is smarter then they are. If you are then they call you an elitist. When you give a speech they may refer to you as professorial, or say they are being lectured to. If there is one thing the voter can't tolerate it's an effete elitist snob".

"I don't know", said Larry. "To be honest with you, all the frogs around here view me and my wig as some kind of joke. I doubt they'd vote for me to be their leader". "Larry, I'm the one who would be the leader. The VP does little more than provide occasional comic relief. Besides, I doubt ALL the frogs think you're a joke. I suspect most of them have never even heard of you". "I'll have to think about it", Larry said finally. "In the meantime you are welcome to stay with me. It's been quite lonely living all by myself".

The Bald Frog And The Ugly Smelly Wig, Redux

2011-05-13T16:33:00.000-05:00

I start to think there really is no cure for depression, that happiness is an ongoing battle, and I wonder if it isn't one I'll have to fight for as long as I live. I wonder if it's worth it ~ Elizabeth Wurtzel (b. 7/31/1967) an American writer and journalist, known for her best-selling memoir Prozac Nation which chronicles her battle with depression while a college undergraduate and how she was eventually rescued by Prozac after a history of therapy and multiple suicide attempts.

One day the random question feature of Blogger told me, "the children are waiting!". Then Blogger asked me to "please tell them the story about the bald frog with the wig". I decided to take Blogger up on it's suggestion, composing a narrative that I posted to my other blog (Pensive Perquinn's Pre-posthumous Ponderings) on 7/27/2010. I don't think anyone ever read it, so I've decided to re-post it here and see if it gets any comments this time around...

The bald frog did not know that all frogs were bald, and so, to cover his embarrassment, he wore a wig. The other frogs laughed at the wig-wearing frog, causing him even greater embarrassment than being bald did. Even so, he decided to continue wearing the wig, because his head was cold, and he didn't have a hat. Frogs have no money, so a trip to the hat store was out of the question. The wig-wearing frog cried himself to sleep every night, cursing his baldness and lack of a hat. Why me? he often wondered, sometimes thinking that he should just end it all.

One day, after a particularly nasty group of young punk frogs surrounded him and jeered him relentlessly, he decided to do just that. He considered leaving a note for anyone who might find his lifeless body to read, but realized that, most likely nobody would be interested in "why", but that they would, if they cared in the least, probably be glad that the world was minus one loser. The next thing to consider was how to do it. That is, how would he put an end to his miserable existence? The wig wearing frog considered hopping onto the nearest freeway and allowing a fast moving vehicle to squish him flat, but decided that was far to horrific to even think about.

Guts squirted everywhere, and vile flies landing, and pooping on his pancaked road kill corpse was a vision that haunted him for several days. He couldn't come up with another method to off himself; he couldn't even think seriously about it. Because so much of his time was taken up with thoughts about how awful being road kill would be, or how awful the moment just prior to becoming road kill might be. Avoiding other frogs and their taunts regarding his wig was also time consuming.

A visit to the location where the most delicious flying insects were meant the possibility of an encounter with another frog. And so he just lay in bed and did nothing all day. Not going out meant not encountering any other frogs who might make fun of his bald head or wig. The wig-wearing frog was more miserable than he had ever been in his life. He didn't have the nerve to seek the sweet relief he craved, although he was completely convinced that there was no other answer. Every day he grew continually weaker, due to a lack of food and exercise to keep his muscles from wasting away. He wasn't even sure he wanted to eat any more of those insects, realizing now that eating them whole meant that he was also eating their feces.

This was an idea that entered his head when he first imagined the nasty bugs defecating on his flattened carcass, and decided then and there he would never consume another. After that decision it did not take long before the wig-wearing frog was so weak from hunger that he could no longer rise from his bed. The end is near now, the wig-wearing frog reflected one evening. He had, a long time ago, had some "friends" over for a visit, but that ended when the so-called friends criticized his (then) newly found wig. It was a casual get-together during which he had expected them all to be impressed with his now covered head. Instead they laughed, at first thinking he was pranking them. When they realized he was not, they laughed and called him names.

Looking back now, that was when the trouble began. If he could go back and do it all over, he would never have picked the wig out of the muck where he found it. But, as much as he hated the wig, he hated his bald head more. The wig-wearing frog drifted off, dreaming of the life that might have been if only he had found a stylish hat instead of the ugly smelly wig.

Frenemies with Benefits: 9/11 Villans George W bush & Osama bin Laden

2011-05-13T15:48:00.001-05:00

We will take them out; we will kill bin Laden; we will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority... Tonight I can report to the American people and to the world, that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda, and a terrorist who is responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) making a campaign promise on 10/7/2008, and announcing (on 5/2/2011, as president) that the promise had been fulfilled.

Definition, Frenemy: a portmanteau of "friend" and "enemy" that can refer to either an enemy disguised as a friend or to a partner who is simultaneously a competitor and rival. The term is used to describe personal, geopolitical, and commercial relationships both among individuals and groups or institutions (Source: Wikipedia).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 5/2/2011, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the operation (code named Neptune's Spear) carried out by Navy SEALs on 5/2/2011 which lead to the death of Osama bin Laden. (Information within brackets are notations added by me).

Thom Hartmann: ...this is a very significant moment [referring to the OBL kill]. But why now? Why not before? Gareth Porter is with us. Gareth Porter is an investigative journalist and historian specializing in US national security policy. You can read his writings over at ipsnews.net and elsewhere. Gareth, welcome to the program.

Gareth Porter: Thanks very much Thom.

TH: I was at at dinner party a couple of weeks ago with a progressive member of Congress and a couple of local DC pundits, and I made the comment that in 2001 the Taliban made an offer to George bush. The Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and George bush turned them down. Everyone in the room, without exception, looked at me like I'd just said that the moon landing didn't acutally happen.

GP: I think that is a fair comment on what happened in 2001.

TH: My understanding is that the Taliban didn't actually offer to turn bin Laden over to bush. They said to bush that they'd turn him over to a third country where he could get a fair trial [if the US was able to produce evidence that OBL was guilty of planning the 9/11 attacks].

GP: Actually, they went beyond that. That was their position as of the first week of October 2001; three weeks after 9/11. But after the US began the bombing of Afghanistan on October 7th, the Taliban very quickly adopted a new position -- which was taken to a secret meeting in Islamabad by the then Taliban foreign minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil. The new offer was to turn over bin Laden, without any preconditions, and you can forget about the evidence...

They said they would turn bin Laden over to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is a Saudi-based international organization of Islamic countries. It is a moderate Islamic organization. I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks.

Had George bush seized upon this proposal -- the process [his trial by an Islamic organization] would have arguably reduced the appeal of bin Laden and al-Qaeda enormously throughout the Islamic world. Having Osama tried by Islamic jurists and by an Islamic international organization would have been an enormous advantage [in that the Islamic world would have accepted the verdict as legitimate].

TH: Why did the bush administration not want that to happen?

GP: That's a very interesting question, Thom. I have been writing a chapter for a book I'm working on precisely on this topic of why bush did not catch bin Laden. There are a couple of answers to that question. The first one is that the neo-conservative inner core of the bush administration's national security team (Cheney and Rumsfeld) were determined to avoid getting involved in Afghanistan. They, of course, had their hearts set on Iraq and a major US military operation there. They never took bin Laden and al-Qaeda seriously. Cheney and Rumsfeld dismissed the idea that al-Qaeda could threaten the United States because they weren't state sponsored but independant actors. So they convinced bush not to do anything that could possibly prejudice the plans for an attack and occupation of Iraq.

TH: Which we know now he had been talking about in 1999 to his biographer Mickey Herskowitz, and was the subject, according to Paul O'Neill, of the very first cabinet meeting that they had in January 2001. [see YouTube video below].

GP: Exactly. The bush administration never had a plan to actually capture bin Laden. Even after 9/11.

TH: Right. Even at Tora Bora where he was arguably right there in front of him [Rumsfeld let bin Laden escape in 2001, says Senate report].

GP: You have to understand that what was being done there was strictly improvisation. There was no planning ahead of time. There would have to have been very detailed planning immediately following 9/11 for any possibility of an effective operation to capture bin Laden in Afghanistan.

TH: Gareth, here's my theory on this... if Lex Luthor didn't exist in the Superman comic books, and all Superman did was run around and stop gas stations from being robbed, they would be the most boring comic books on earth. The "good" of a good character in fiction is defined by how "evil" the evil character is. So for George bush to turn himself from a ne'er-do-well who was appointed by the Supreme Court -- into Superman -- he needed to have a Lex Luthor. And he took the opportunity to turn Osama bin laden into Lex Luthor so he could be Superman.

GP: I think there's something to that, but let's stop and recall a very important distinction here. When he had the opportunity to really do something about al-Qaeda and bin Laden in 2001 he was not interested at all. And remember that even in early 2002, after bin Laden had escaped to Pakistan, it was George W bush who reasurred the American people that bin Laden wasn't really important. He only invented bin Laden as a factor in his policy after the Iraq war began to go badly.

TH: Ah ha. So that's when it got convenient from him.

GP: Yea.

TH: Gareth Porter. Gareth, thanks so much for being with us. Great talking with you.

GP: Thank you Thom. [End of discussion]

My Commentary: My conclusion, based on this conversation (and everything else I have read), is that GWB didn't take the threat posed by OBL and al-Qaeda seriously until it suited him. Richard Clarke (chief counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council) told bush that, since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (10/12/2000), he had been working on an "aggressive plan to take the fight to al Qaeda".

bush didn't want to hear it, so he demoted Richard Clarke and re-assigned the counter-terrorism issue to a task force headed by Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney's task force didn't meet until 9/4/2001. This was 234 days after the bush administration assumed power, but only 7 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In the next segment Thom Hartmann concludes that GWB, "just wanted to transfer billions of dollars to his buddies in the defense industry", and points out that Halliburton was on the verge of bankruptcy before 9/11, and now, in the last quarter, this former US-based company (which is now located in Dubai) posted a 5 billion dollar profit. In bush's mind "the best way to revitalize the economy is war", and the best way to judge how the "economy" is doing is to examine how the wealthy elites are faring.

Clearly OBL and GWB exploited each other for their own advantage. Osama provided George with the excuse he and PNAC needed to launch their unending "war on terror" and "revitalize the economy". 9/11 also allowed bush to brand himself a "war president" and paint the Democrats as "weak on national defense", thus securing his second term -- because you can't change a horse midstream when we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.

In return bush handed Osama the bona fides he craved as a Wahhabi leader. Pre-9/11 Osama lead an obscure Islamic movement that was going nowhere. When bush declared war on "terror" and declared it was a "crusade", he elevated Osama to the level of super-villain (or hero fighting back against the "Great Satan", depending on your point of view) and revitalized al-Qaeda. Outraged Muslims whose family members were killed ceased being innocent civilians and joined the "insurgency" to fight the American invaders. Osama's plan was to bog down the United States in a war of attrition and bleed America to the point of bankruptcy. George bush delivered in spades.

This is why call George bush and Osama bin Laden "Frenemies with benefits". Osama is now dead, "justice" having been served. But what about George bush? Why is he still a free man? We know where he is, so I think Seal Team 6 could take him out quite easily. Whether or not I'm serious (about assassinating bush) I do believe he belongs behind bars -- along with the other war criminals in his administration. I think that would be appropriate for a group of war profiteers that are responsible for the deaths of over a million people.

Republican Cons and Carnival Barkers

2011-05-07T15:07:00.006-05:00

We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers ~ Barack Obama (b. 8/4/1961) the 44th president of the United States (1/20/2009 to present) referring to those who question if he was born in the United States; in a press conference announcing the release of his long form Hawaiian birth certificate on 4/27/2011.

The first Republican presidential debate was held Wednesday 5/4/2011. I find this a little confusing, considering the fact that no Republican has OFFICIALLY declared that they are actually running. The Fox Nooz-hosted debate featured Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. Except for Tim Pawlenty all of these "candidates" will drop out before the primaries. Hell, the majority of them will probably drop out before even officially declaring they are running. Ron Paul has announced that he'll be opening a campaign office soon, so I'm guessing he will declare, engage in a few more debates, and then drop out (as usual).

Absent from the debate were a number of individuals whom the media has been speculating about for awhile. It is my contention that these supposed potential candidates did not show up because they have absolutely no intention of running for president. They haven't said they aren't running though. In fact, they have made every effort to make it appear as though they MIGHT run.

The reason these fakers are working hard to maintain the illusion that they might run is because there is a significant amount of cash to be made collecting "campaign donations" from gullible right-wing voters. Of all the possibilities there are three I believe will definitely NOT run. Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump will POSITIVELY not run. I'm convinced that two others, Mike Huckabee and Michelle Bachmann will PROBABLY not run.

This is the second time Newt Gingrich has pretended there is a possibility he might run for president. Newt "I might run for president" Gingrich is a Conservative con man who was the first Republican who stumbled upon this money-making scam. As far as the 2012 election is concerned Newt says he is currently in an "exploratory phase". Newt wants to avoid pesky laws the federal election commission imposes on people who form exploratory committees. FEC rules state that, "If someone is testing the waters [by forming an exploratory committee] and decides not to run, testing the waters activity is not disclosed to the FEC".

A 2/28/2011 story from Politico revels that Newt Gingrich raised 14.5 million dollars in 2010 via his fundraising organization "American Solutions". A large chunk of the money people donated to American Solutions was then bequeathed to "The Gingrich Group" in return for "administrative services". The Gingrich Group is a consulting firm headed by... (wait for it) Newt Gringrich! What a nifty way to get around federal laws that prohibit potential candidates from simply pocketing donations -- which is what the less-savvy flimflammer Christine O'Donnell did.

Newt's phony presidential bids were covered by Rachel Maddow on 3/3/2011 with a story she called "He's Faking It". It turns out that pretending to run for president is only one of many Newt Gingrich scams formulated to separate Right-wing fools from their money. Newt also gives out "awards" in exchange for the modest fee of $5,000. Newt Gingrich wasn't a serious 2008 presidential contender and he will not be a serious 2012 contender either.

Sarah Palin, taking a cue from Mr. Gingrich, does what she can to maintain the mirage that a presidential run may be in her future. As long as there is a possibility she might run, interest in her books, speaking engagements, Fox News gig and reality program remains artificially high. If Palin were not MAYBE running for president would interest in the half-term governor who quit be as high? Would she be raking in quite as much dough? I think not. Pretending to run for president, while not actual work, pays very handsomely. Sarah Palin will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Some people believe Donald Trump might possibly maybe run for president. A recent public poll says Trump came in second behind Mitt Romney. The 4/4/2011 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that "21% of respondents said Romney was their pick for the GOP nomination, while 17% broke for both Trump and Huckabee. Newt Gingrich came in fourth at 11%, followed by Sarah Palin with 10%, Tim Pawlenty at 6%, and Michele Bachmann who received 5%". Does this mean that "Donald Trump should be taken very seriously by both the right and the left"? I say N-O.

A 4/6/2011 Talking Points Memo commentary alleges that Trump, "in an appeal to birthers, [is] questioning President Obama's citizenship". TMP's conclusion is that the "play to the party's edge may be paying off". Now that President Obama has released his long form birth certificate, Trump has switched gears and is suggesting that Obama's grades weren't good enough for him to get into Harvard.

Clearly Trump is attempting to appeal to the racist birther faction of the Republican party. The media loved discussing the issue (before Obama released his long form BC), because it was controversial and attracted eyes to their news programs. This is all about the free publicity -- and electing a Republican (who isn't Trump) that will adopt Paul Ryan's "Path to Poverty" budget and significantly cut The Donald's taxes.

Whether or not this is a con (or self-delusion), it certainly illustrates the fact that The Donald has zero integrity. Donald should be ashamed of himself, although I seriously doubt he is capable of that emotion (he actually congratulated himself for bringing attention to the issue!). Donald Trump will not run for 2012 Republican presidential nomination. He'll drop out before May 16th when NBC announces whether or not Trump's Apprentice TV program will be returning for another season.

After reviewing the evidence I think the reason none of these fakers are ashamed of the humongous lies they're telling is because they're sociopaths. Ayn Rand Objectivists are PROUD of the fact that they don't give a crap about their fellow human beings. They call it "rational self interest". Republicans have, beginning with Reagan, moved steadily in that direction. Proof positive of this is their "Path to Poverty" 10 year plan which completely dismantles the social safety net; not to reduce the national debt, but to further cut taxes on the country's most wealthy citizens.

This is why Newt Gingrich trades in his wife every so often for a newer model; and treated each soon-to-be ex-wife extremely shabbily when he requested his divorces. Sarah Plain quit her governorship to make money because she doesn't understand the concept of public service and didn't give a damn that she'd made a commitment. Donald Trump is famous for his ego and (like Newt), dumping wives.

Now, I'm not saying that ALL conservative politicians are narcissistic lying pond scum, or that corruption and immorality can be found exclusively on the right side of the political spectrum, but a Democrat has never pretended he may run for president as a money-making scam. Also consider the fact that Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, thinks asking health insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions is the same as asking property insurance companies to sell someone insurance AFTER their house burns down. This is a supposed man of God, and he places profit over human lives!

This is typical of Republican indifference to the suffering of people who aren't them or their friends or family members. They believe are better than the average person (who Ayn Rand called parasites and lice), which is why it bothers them not in the least to lie about running for president in order to extract money from any sucker who will believe them.

Further Reading

Trump is Not a True Conservative Transcript from the Glenn Beck Radio Program, 4/19/2011
Top Ten Reasons Why Sarah Palin is Running For President by Tony Lee, Human Events 4/13/2011
So, What Is A Presidential Exploratory Committee, Exactly? by Jason Linkins, The Huffington Post 3/23/2011

Natural Born Birthers

2011-05-06T19:13:00.006-05:00

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States ~ James Madison (4/16/1751 to 6/28/1836) the 4th President of the United States (4/4/1809 to 4/4/1817), Founding Father, and principal author of the United States Constitution, in a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789.

For the last two years the White House has had an illegal resident.
An individual who is constitutionally ineligible to be president.
The Kenyan (or British) Muslim faker must be stopped.
Are we really going to be fooled by a long form Hawaiian birth certificate that has been photoshopped?
Jerome Corsi is one of the few who knows the truth.
Barack Obama is incapable of producing any proof.

Even if he was born in Honolulu both of his parents were US citizens not.
So he isn't natural born, although on this Article Two doesn't elaborate a lot.
Regardless Birthers will interpret it the way they want.

Opposing out of control spending isn't racist.
That claim is totally baseless.
Just ask friend of "the blacks" Trump.
To get into Harvard Obama's grades gave him no bump.

Now he certainly isn't dumber than W.
But if he benefited from affirmative action that should trouble you.
The Congressional Black Caucus, Ben Jealous and their ilk are the true bigots according to MLK.
The content of your character is all that should matter today.

Do the Tea Party Birthers think we should buy this nonsense?
Personally I can't wait until we are able to refer to them in the past tense.
Republican operatives like Franklin Graham and Denish D'Souza put forth ugly theories to discriminate.
Those who aren't blind know the GOP panders to voters who hate.

Scientology & Objectivism Are 2 Equally Crazy Cults!

2011-04-14T23:47:00.003-05:00

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs ~ John Rogers, a screenwriter who resides in Los Angeles CA.

For many, Rand's Objectivism was a way station between L Ron Hubbard's Dianetics and Werner Erhard's est... not only has the Objectivist movement been a classic cult as defined in the dictionary, it may arguably be viewed as a destructive psychotherapeutic-religious cult ~ Jeff Walker, author of "The Ayn Rand Cult" (a quote from his 1998 book).

If you know anything about Scientology it's probably something regarding how nutty it is. This is the religion founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Scientology postulates that all of humanities' problems are the result of an extraterrestrial ghost infestation. These ET specters, which Hubbard calls "body thetans" parasitically latch on to nearby humans, feeding them bad vibes. Only followers of Mr. Hubbard know how to exorcise the otherworldly spirits through a process called auditing, which is provided by the church for a fee. In other words it's a money making scam designed to separate fools from their money.

Another crazy cult you may or may not have heard of is Objectivism. Whereas Scientology appeals to those who are mentally ill, Objectivism appeals to sociopaths of the Gordon Gekko variety who believe greed is virtuous. Politically these rational-self-interest types are Libertarian or Republican. The leader of the Objectivist cult was a Russian immigrant and atheist who was born Alisa Rosenbaum but changed her name to Ayn Rand. Oddly enough many right-wing Christians have succumbed to her free market fantasies. They must believe that they can worship two gods.

While I'm sure that Objectivists would take exception to being classified as crazy cultists similar in any way to the loons that practice Scientology, I'm not going to make any significant additional comparisons between the two. I'm only going to make one additional minor comparison. They both have big budget films based on fictional (and incredibly long) novels written by their respective luminaries.

Randians had The Fountainhead, which was a 1949 film starring Gary Cooper (not too shabby). But now they a second film. A brand new cinematic version of Rand's 1957 magnum opus Atlas Shrugged. This gives them the opportunity to be as embarrassed as Scientologists are in regards to the Razzie award-winning John-Travolta-starring Battlefield Earth.

Well, perhaps not THAT embarrassed, but the reviews I've read indicate that it won't end up being "the greatest film the first half of this century". The description I just related to you was a pre-review authored by the blogger Rational Nation USA. He dropped this "momentary infomercial break [slash] non paid advertising" nugget here on this blog in response to my one of my previous posts (which didn't have diddly to do with Rand or Objectivism). After checking around the interwebs I discovered he had shat the same comment on a quite a few of the Left-leaning blogs I frequent.

Obviously he's quite excited. "You got to check it out", he insisted, and so I did. The last time I heard of this movie it was a big budget Hollywood endeavor with Angelina Jolie attached. As far as I know, Angelina Jolie isn't a Right-winger (or at least she has done a lot of work with the UN, which Right-wingers hate), so I was never entirely sure why she wanted to have anything to do with bringing Ayn Rand's delusions to the silver screen. Now it's starring a bunch of unknowns, although it does have a 10 million dollar budget.

Libertarian PJ O’Rourke, says, "Atlas Shrugged. And So Did I". The reason PJ shrugs is because the film is more than a little boring. Brian Calle of the Right-wing rag The Daily Caller thinks Atlas Shrugged "could become a cult classic". A CULT classic isn't the same as a genuine classic. Sometimes cult films are revered by a select group because the film is hilariously bad. In this instance, however, I think the word CULT is used because that is the only group of people who will be interested in this; people who are already members in the cult of Rand. But it could be hilariously bad too.

This film has a PART 1 attached to it, although the planned parts 2 and 3 aren't currently in production. I'd guess the reason is because the financers of this film didn't want to commit to making any sequels until the box office receipts are tallied for this installment. My prediction is that the free market will speak and it will soon become apparent that there isn't a large market for films promoting the "greed is good" mantra. Gordon Gekko was the villain in "Wall Street". Most people believe avarice is a sin, not something to be proud of. What I'm saying is I hope this film does poorly.

In an email I received today FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe says "[this movie] has the opportunity to introduce millions more around the world to the philosophy of freedom". Instead of "introduce" I think the word he's looking for is "indoctrinate". Imagine a film that touted the virtues of a society where the contributions of everyone (not just the wealthy) were valued. A film in which the growing disparity between the rich and the poor was viewed as a problem and not simply the MORE VALUABLE citizens claiming their just reward. Would the Right not call such a film Socialist propaganda?

BTW, I'm not saying I'm opposed to products produced for a niche market, as I have my own niche market interests. My niche market interest is orchestral film music. Which is why I checked out who wrote the score for Atlas Shrugged. Turns out another thing Atlas Shrugged has in common with Battlefield Earth is that the background music in both was written by Czechoslovakia composer Elia Cmiral. I know this because I own a copy of the Battlefield Earth soundtrack CD. This made me wonder, is Elia Cmiral the go-to composer for films based on the books of crazy cult leaders?

I'd rather rewatch my Lord of the Rings director's cut DVDs instead of a film based on Ayn Rand's garbage, although I actually might be interested in purchasing a CD of the Atlas Shrugged film score if one is released. I listened to the "John Galt theme" YouTube on the official website, and I liked it. I was disappointed with the last CD of Mr. Cimiral's I purchased, which I would describe as "atmospheric synth droning". I've passed on several of Mr. Cimiral's CDs lately as I've grown tired of boring synth drones, but this theme is performed on a piano. There probably won't be a soundtrack CD, however. Many big budget Hollywood films don't get one, and this film already has very limited appeal.

Even if a CD is released I think I'll wait and try to pick it up second-hand. I'd prefer that NONE of my money ended up in the hands of anyone involved in producing Ayn Rand's propaganda as a sci-fi fantasy flick. Republicans may fear a dystopian future where all citizens have access to health care and the wealthy pay a slightly higher tax rate, but my fear is of a present in which Paul Ryan's laughable "Path to Prosperity" is considered a STARTING POINT for budget negotiations.

Representative Paul Ryan's budget encapsulates the Republican dream of an America in which the wealthy pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than does everyone else. And all the money the government does spend for social programs is funneled though private businesses who first take their cut. Yesterday President Obama said he wouldn't allow that to happen while he was president, but that doesn't mean Republicans are ever going to stop trying to bring their vision of a dystopian society to fruition. Clearly we have a hell of a lot more to fear from Republican fascists than Democratic socialists.

Further Reading

The Reviews Are In: Atlas Shrugged is Really, Really Awful! by Shaw Kenawe, Progressive Eruptions 4/20/2011
Growing Up Objectivist by Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Beast 4/11/2011
Atlas Shrugged. And So Did I. A review of the film by P.J. O'Rourke, The Wall Street Journal 4/6/2011
How Ayn Rand ruined my childhood by By Alyssa Bereznak, Salon 4/4/2011
Atlas Shrugged is Absurd but Strangely Compelling by Sam Jordison, Books Blog 3/27/2009
Ayn Rand's Philosophy by Gore Vidal, Esquire 7/1961

Teabag Patsies Help Establishment GOPers Play Teabag Chicken

2011-04-09T15:09:00.009-05:00

The perception of U.S. credit quality would be permanently impacted. The faith in the U.S. Treasury is the closest thing we have to risk-free securities. Playing a game of chicken with the debt ceiling is the nuclear option ~ Calvin Sullivan, chief strategy officer of fixed-income capital markets at Morgan Keegan & Co, as quoted in the 1/29/2011 CNN Money article "Playing Chicken with the Debt Ceiling".

Recently I received (via email) a "very important letter" from editor-in-chief Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. The very important information Mr. Farah wanted to impart was something he referred to as the Republican's "secret weapon". Apparently Mr. Farah believes House Republicans can have their way and cut every single Democratic program they disagree with. In the letter Mr. Farah asked the following questions...

Q1: How would you like to defund Obamacare now?

Q2: How would you like to end subsidies for NPR and PBS this year?

Q3: How would you like to stop taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and dozens of other offensive and deadly programs even before Barack Obama leaves office?

How does Mr. Farah believe Republicans can accomplish these goals? Turns out all they have to do is deploy their secret weapon. Farah reveals that, "if Republicans refuse to raise the debt limit, the borrowing must stop -– and hundreds of billions of dollars must be cut from the federal budget".

This is the NEXT battle. If you're thinking, "wait a minute, didn't we just have this battle" -- you're partially right. The House teabaggers did just try to attach these exact same defunding riders to the budget bill. Now some folks may also be thinking -- because there is an apparent tentative agreement and these items aren't a part of it -- funding for ObamaCare, NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood are all safe. Think again.

The odd thing is that Joseph Farah sent me this important letter over a week ago, at which point the possibility of a government shutdown still loomed (and perhaps there will still be one, as the budget agreement still hasn't been officially formalized). So why wasn't the secret weapon a government shutdown? Or why didn't he say there were TWO secret weapons?

We know that if there is a government shutdown Republicans are rightly afraid the public will blame them. Like they blamed the Republicans when Speaker Newt shut down government during Clinton's presidency (twice). Try as they might to deflect blame to the Democrats or the president this time, they KNOW their excuses won't be accepted by the public.

Did we really come close to a government shutdown, or was it simply a negotiating tactic -- and the Republicans were always going to flinch? Certainly I believe the House teabaggers were stupid enough to shut the government down. But even if they are stupid enough to vote in favor of the US government defaulting on it debts -- I seriously doubt establishment Republicans are that stupid (or I believe most of them aren't).

That is why I think this secret weapon is bullshit. The Republicans are playing a game of chicken with the Democrats (and the economy) and it appears to be working. Round one of Teabag Chicken was when the Republicans held middleclass tax cuts hostage. The hostages of round two were The Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare), Planned Parenthood and NPR/PBS.

Unlike round one where they got their tax cuts for the wealthy, this time they didn't get what they wanted. They did manage to pump up the budget cut figure from 33 to 38.5 billion though. This makes me wonder if that wasn't their tactic all along. Are the establishment Republicans playing the teabaggers for patsies by using their issues (which they KNOW will won't pass the House/be vetoed by the president) to force Democrats to further cut economic stimulus (AKA government spending)?

A 10/29/2008 World Net Daily article titled, "Bush's $2.2 Billion Gift to Planned Parenthood" says, "the Bush administration has extensively funded Planned Parenthood. The total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush's first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million -– a single year funding increase of 67 percent".

So, the question is: are establishment Republicans playing Teabag Chicken with the administration to get what they want (stimuls cuts that will negatively impact the economy and make it harder for president Obama to get re-elected) -- and using/making patsies of their teabag faction? I think so. I also think Congressional Democrats and the administration should stop playing along, as the GOPers are playing them for suckers as well.

President Obama & The Very Bad Deal

2011-04-08T17:20:00.001-05:00

These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945) as quoted in his Speech to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (6/27/1936).

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 12/8/2010, which I edited for brevity and clarity. The discussion concerns the president's tax cut deal with the Republicans that had not yet passed when the discussion took place...

Thom Hartmann: Greetings my friends, patriots, lovers of democracy, truth and justice, believers in peace, freedom and the American way. Thom Hartmann here with you. And of course the great debate going on now across the United States from living rooms to boardrooms to the United States Congress -- what to do about this compromise that President Obama has come up with the Republicans to extend tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for two years, and to extend unemployment benefits on a limited number of unemployed people...

Dan Pfeiffer is with us, he is the White House Communications Director. Dan, welcome to the program.

Dan Pfeiffer: Thanks Thom.

TH: This tax cut that was originally passed by George bush and the Republicans with less than 60 votes in the United States Senate, because it was passed by reconciliation. Why has the Obama Administration not attempted to use reconciliation in the last two years for any of their agenda items that could conceivably be passed by reconciliation -- to expand Medicare for example, or in this case taxes?

DP: We did use reconciliation to pass the health care bill. You only get to use it once per budget year. [Even though the budget is from October to October] we don't have a budget for the next year yet [which is why we can't use reconciliation to pass tax cut legislation and instead need to get Republican votes].

TH: [Here's the problem I see with this deal...] unemployment only goes for a year, so Obama's going to be stuck during the election year, in 2012, during that entire year, trying to deal with unemployment. And at the same time the Republicans are going to come back and say, you know the Obama tax cuts just jacked the budget deficit and the debt up by almost a trillion dollars -- and so we've got to cut more social programs.

DP: Well, Thom, I think it's important to understand a few things here. First is, because the Republicans had 42 votes in the Senate, and frankly there was not unanimous Democratic support for allowing the upper income tax cuts to expire, we were put in a position where you only have two choices, and there were only two. People can talk about this far fetched scenario or that far fetched scenario, but it boils down to two very stark choices.

Do we let taxes go up on middle class families who absolutely can not afford it -- a tax increase of two to three thousand dollars next year -- at the same time that the unemployed Americans, 2 million at the end of this year, will go without benefits, or do you try to find a compromise that works? Compromise means we are going to have to swallow some things we don't like and the Republicans are going to have to swallow some things that they don't like, but [the question is] is it a good deal for America? Is it a good deal for our economy? Is it a good deal for middle and working class people?

There is no question that this is a very good deal. The president was adamantly opposed to extending the tax cuts for the upper income brackets -- he fought this for many years -- but there is not a supermajority in the Senate that will allow that it happen. So if we can't do that, we need to get a deal that ensures that middle and working class families not only don't face a tax increase, but we were able to some things to help the economy in the long run.

TH: Dan, I would submit to you that there's a third option. Let me have 10 seconds, if I may [Thom plays audio of the FDR quote at the top of this post]. Why is the president not talking like that?

DP: Well, I think that is an excellent speech. A very historic speech. You're right, there is a third option, which is the same as the first option, which is to allow the taxes to go up, and then spend the next several weeks and months making a political case to the American people about why this is the Republican's fault.

TH: Do you really think, that if you just let these tax cuts expire, and then president Obama goes on TV and gives a [FDR type] speech, and says that, we already have legislation that has been passed by the House, [and all we need to do is present that legislation to the Senate and ask] are you guys going to vote for tax cuts for middle class people? Yes or no? You really think that they would not back down?

DP: They may eventually back down, but you would go months and months before that happened, and every day we were before the Senate making these political arguments, unemployed Americans would get no benefits. Middle class Americans would have a higher tax bill. The economy...

TH: [interrupts] Wait a minute. I was talking about tax cuts. Let's talk about unemployment. Don't you think he could go right now and... bring out some stories like Ronald Reagan used to do.

DP: When Democrats had 59 votes in the Senate it took nearly six months to pass unemployment benefits. There is...

TH: [interrupts] Because there was no presidential leadership, Dan.

DP: I entirely disagree with that Thom. [The choice was to] let taxes go up which endangers our recovery and hurts middle class folks who can't afford it, or you can cut a deal. This is a good deal. It, uh...

TH: [interrupts] Dan, when George bush sold this thing we were told that the average cut on a median income individual with a family of four was $300 a year. That was the Democratic response to George bush's tax cut, "It's only 300 bucks a year". If someone making 50 grand a year is only going to see their taxes go up $300 a year where's the damage?

DP: There's a huge damage. The president talks to middle class and working class folks all the time who are scraping nickles together to...

TH: [interrupts] But income tax rates right now in the United States are lower than they've been in 60 years.

DP: Thom, if you want to make an argument that we should allow taxes to go up on middle class Americans to prove a political point, then we are at a...

TH: [interrupts] No. I'm saying that if anybody should be held hostage, it should be the Republicans rather than working Americans.

DP: What the president has said is that he has gotten a very good deal for working Americans. And a lot of measures that are going to create jobs for unemployed Americans who don't currently have them, and...[music signifying the end of the segment begins to play].

TH: [interrupts] Dan, I'm sorry we're out of time. You're doing a great job. I wish you well, but I disagree. Thank you for coming on.

DP: Thanks Thom. [Dan Pfeiffer disconnects].

TH: [addressing the listeners] I'm suggesting that we all be calling our Senators and our Congressmen and say "filibuster this thing. Stop it. Kill it". [End of segment]

My Commentary: Normally Thom Hartmann does not continually interrupt his guests. This interview was very atypical for the Thom Hartmann program. The reason for the "rudeness" (if that's what you want to call it) is that Thom felt this was a very bad deal. In retrospect, I believe Thom Hartmann was entirely correct. President Obama got teabagged. This was a Republican trap that he walked right into. Due to his quest to be even more bipartisan -- which is the message he wrongly believed the voters sent by turning the House over to the Republicans.

In the next segment Thom explained another aspect of this bad deal, which is that "part of this legislation is a two percent reduction in payroll taxes". In regards to the payroll tax holiday Thom says, "What's that going to do? Over the short term, not a whole lot. But if you could make that permanent, it would take such a bite out of Social Security that it would require you to consider privatizing part of Social Security, or cutting benefits, or raising the retirement age".

This is the strategy behind the payroll tax holiday; it's a stealth move to sabotage Social Security. If further cutting the taxes of working people is a good idea -- then do it. There is no reason to specifically target funds that should be going to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Finally, because the extension of the bush tax cuts added significantly to the deficit, Republicans yelling and screaming about how we're "broke" gain a lot more credibility. All over the media and blogosphere Conservatives insist that "it doesn't matter how we got here, what matters is we're broke and need to do something about it".

Of course that "something" is to cut programs that benefit middle and working class Americans, which is exactly what Thom predicted. And it certainly does matter how we got here. We are where we are because Conservative deregulation created a housing bubble that crashed the economy.

What President Obama and the Congressional Democrats could have done to get us back on the right track would have been to kill the bush tax cuts. Immediately. Repeal should have been the first order of business as soon as Barack Obama assumed office. Failing that, they most certainly should not have been extended. Some Democrats say if Obama hadn't made the deal good legislation like the repeal of DADT or health care for the 9/11 first responders wouldn't have been passed.

President Obama was RIGHT when he said the GOPers were holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage, but he was wrong when he decided to negotiate with the hostage takers. You don't negotiate with TERRORISTS -- which is what the Republicans are. If you negotiate with a terrorist the terrorist will surely return to terrorize you again. Because they know they can get what they want by doing so.

This is what is happening RIGHT NOW with the battle over the budget and looming government shutdown. This time it's the Tea Party Representatives doing the terrorizing. The question now is -- will Obama cave and give them exactly what they want? Will the President allow himself to be teabagged yet again? The strategy has been working for the entire Obama presidency thus far, so I see no reason why they'd abandon it now.

Will Expletive R-tarded Liberals Ruin Obama's Chances for Re-election?

2011-04-06T18:26:00.012-05:00

The gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through ~ Ted Rall (b. 8/26/1963) columnist, syndicated editorial cartoonist, and author who claims Liberals aren't going to vote for President Obama in 2012; as quoted in his 5/29/2009 Illinois State Register Journal article, "It's Increasingly Evident that Obama Should Resign".

Obama's Chances for Re-election in 2012 may be ruined. If the President does fail to secure a second term the obvious question will be -- whom do we blame? Many have already began to speculate about which group of Democratic voters will torpedo Obama's re-election bid. You may have heard that Rahm Emanuel thinks thinks Liberals are "fu*king retarded"... because they aren't falling into lockstep with the Democratic leadership and actually DARE to criticize the president. So clearly they're the ones we should hold responsible if a Republican returns to the White House in 2013.

That's an opinion a blogger who calls himself Infidel753 agrees with. In the comment thread of a post on the blog Greedy Capitalist Pig 101, the Infidel blogger says...

Look how many disappointed leftists stayed home last year and saddled us with Rand Paul and Scott Walker and the rest of these thugs and nuts in the first place.

But this isn't the first time the Infidel blogger has complained about dissatisfied Leftists. I'm pretty sure he thinks Liberals fu*ked up the 2010 election and they're currently doing their best to fu*k things up in 2012. Later another blogger using the ID Bamboo linked to an article which he described as "very funny". In his funny commentary author Ted Rall makes the case that the next president might be a Republican because Obama won't be able to "Fool us Twice". In regards to what he terms Obama's "micro-mini-accomplishment lites", Rall says...

[Will they] be enough to pry liberal asses off the sofa on Election Day? I think not. On the big issues that really matter -- war, the economy, civil liberties -- Obama is a right-wing Republican. He's only a Democrat on the little stuff. Liberals won't turn out big for Obama in 2012.

Infidel is a moderate Democrat who believes the Tea Party won big in 2010 because Leftists stayed home. They did so because they were disgusted over the deal Obama struck with Congressional Republicans to extend the bush tax cuts -- although personally he believes the deal was pretty good, the best Obama could do, or a necessary evil. Take your pick; I don't really care. Ted Rall is a political commentator (and cartoonist) propagating the meme that Infidel is buying into. Rall thinks the next president will be a Republican because Liberals won't vote for a president who so significantly let them down (and may as well be a Republican).

Seeing as Ted Rall is so very disappointed in Obama, he certainly can't vote for him in 2012. Luckily there is a possibility of "a strong primary challenge to Obama's left flank". Who might this strong primary challenger be? Citing the Libertarian Reason Magazine as his source, Rall says the challenger may be Russ Feingold. This causes me to question Mr. Rall's grasp of reality. Reason Magazine is a credible source concerning ANYTHING Liberal? How Liberals vote? How Liberals think? What Liberals may do?

Mr. Rall may agree with the Reason Magazine author he quoted, but Mr. Rall (and Reason Magazine) are wrong. Russ Feingold will NOT challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Not unless Russ Feingold believes a Republican president is a better alternative (which I am positive he doesn't).

Ted Rall complains that President Obama is continuning many of the bush administraton policies Liberals hoped he would quickly do away with. Indefinite detention, military tribunals and many of the other "lawless behaviors" of bush have been continued by Obama; and Ted Rall is unhappy (as are many Liberals). But instead of advocating that Americans work hard to pressure Obama to abandon these policies, Rall instead suggested Barack Obama resign the presidency -- on 5/29/2009. On this date Barack Obama had been president exactly 130 days (or less than 4 months). I don't know how an Obama resignation would benefit Liberals (or the country). Was Ted Rall rooting for Joe Biden to win the nomination?

My conclusion is that I think Ted Rall doesn't have a freaking clue how the majority of Liberals (or Leftists) will vote (or not vote) in 2012. But the same holds true for the Infidel blogger; the polling data says they are both wrong. On the 4/4/2011 broadcast of the MSNBC program The Last Word host Lawrence O'Donnell said...

All the talk has been that the president has a problem with Liberals because he has disappointed Liberals. We have polling that indicates that among Democrats, Liberal Democrats support the president more than any other group. They support him 83 percent. Moderate Democrats are lower than that at 77 percent. This is after his compromising with Republicans that may have had more support among Moderates than among Liberals. I don't see in the polling where the challenge lies for the president with Liberals.

In response, his guest Melissa Harris-Perry said...

Liberals are most happy with him because relative to the alternative, they are the farthest away from the alternative. Yea, I think that's right, the moderates are the problem. It's always that issue for a candidate. He's got to get those swing voters and keep his base mobilized.

FYI: I searched for the source of the polling Larry said he had, but couldn't find it. There was onscreen graphic showing the "polling results" at the time LO spoke of the support from various Democratic factions, but I don't recall if it said (onscreen) what the source for their data was. The transcript makes no mention of onscreen graphics.

I trust Mr. O'Donnell. He says Liberals are going to vote for Obama in 2012. I'm a Liberal and I plan on voting for President Obama again. The reason isn't that I'm not disappointed in ways similar to how Ted Rall is disappointed (which I am). Rall makes a lot of valid points, but his conclusions are wrong. The Infidel blogger who believes that Tea Party victories in 2010 were due to disappointed Leftists staying home is also wrong. While it is true a lot of people who voted for the president in 2008 didn't show up to vote in the 2010 midterms -- those people weren't Leftists. They were the usual non-voting types who have traditionally not participated.

A study highlighted in a 11/24/2010 article posted on the Project Vote website reveals that, "two years ago, African-Americans, lower-income Americans, and young Americans all participated in the 2008 presidential election in decisive numbers, making it the most diverse electorate in history. In 2010, however, these historically underrepresented groups were underrepresented again, as they... largely stayed home".

The Democratic losses in the 2010 midterms can be blamed on politically inactive non-voters who got excited in 2008 and voted for Obama. Once Obama was elected and nothing significantly changed they went BACK to being politically inactive non-voters. The Tea Party victories in 2010 can NOT be attributed to Liberals or Leftists, so the Infidel blogger should stop pointing his finger of blame at them.

If President Obama loses his re-election bid in 2012 we should blame the aforementioned inactive non-voters as well as independent moderate swing voters. These dipshits who voted for President Obama may actually decide returning a Republican to the executive office is a good idea. To these wishy-washy middle-of-the-roaders I say, pick a political philosophy and stick with it.

The blogger Bamboo says an obama loss in 2012 should be blamed on "the elites of the Democratic Party that abandoned [him]". While I agree with Bamboo that neoliberalism is a scourge that has infected the Democratic party and is the primary source of frustration progressives have with the Democratic Party, I'm not so sure Obama isn't a Neoliberal convert. He suggested during the lead up to the election that a renegotiation of NAFTA might be possible, but quickly dropped that notion after winning the election. He also hired a number of ex-Clinton financial advisors, including the neoliberal-ish deregulation-loving Larry Summers.

In my opinion Barack Obama has shown himself to be a third-way Bill Clinton-emulating Corporatist. He may very well not be that much better an alternative to whomever the Republicans run. Obama may be, according to Ted Rall, "a right-wing Republican [who is] only a Democrat on the little stuff", but the Republican nominee will be a Democrat on NO STUFF, of that you can be assured.

Does Ted Rall believe we should throw in the towel and turn our country over to the plutocrats without a fight? Or does he believe our only hope is for a miracle to occur and somehow (impossible as it REALLY is) Russ Feingold gets elected president -- or challenges Obama and pushes him to the Left (and after that Obama still wins, despite the fact that primary challenges usually weaken a candidate)?

By the way, the topic of my commentary thus far is, "which group of constituents do we blame if Barack Obama isn't re-elected". My answer was (and still is) NOT Liberals (or Leftists), but politically inactive non-voters and independent moderate swing voters. If the question were, "of everyone who might be responsible for an Obama defeat, who should we blame?", then the answer would be Barack Obama himself, as well as the Neoliberals and Corporatists who have corrupted the Democratic Party -- which is a crying shame. I did have hope when I initally voted for BO that he would deliver on his promise of change.

Even so, my opinion is that we should re-elect President Obama -- and then CONTINUE pressuring him to move to the Left. It may not work, but I see no alternative. In any case Obama may have no choice BUT to move to the Left if the economy crashes again; a goal the Republicans are actively working to achieve. If that happens, as is posited by Ravi Batra in his book "The New Golden Age", the American people may rise up and DEMAND change.

Mr. Batra's book is subtitled "The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos", so protests similar to those in Egypt may not be unthinkable. I hope it doesn't come to that, but it may be inevitable. Certainly we cannot continue down this same path for much longer; that path being the one where the rich get continually richer while everyone else is asked to sacrifice.

(Please note that I edited the quotes I pulled from "The Last Word" for brevity and clarity. They are not verbatim, but they are very close).

Further Reading

The Narrative Continues by Bamboo, Bend With The Wind 4/6/2011
Obama's Liberal Problem by Joshua Green, The Atlantic 12/7/2010

The Ballad of a Liberal Led Astray by Moral Depravity and Greed

2011-04-04T13:07:00.028-05:00

One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked. Depravities are real ~ Klaus Kinski (10/18/1926 to 11/23/1991) a German actor who appeared in over 130 films, and is perhaps best-remembered as a leading role actor in Werner Herzog films.

"I'm sad to see you've sunk to such depths. This cannot be good for your mental health", the Liberal's life coach cautioned him. "You used to tell the truth, but now you're engaging in such depravities. The Right may believe that they are more virtious, but they approve of cutting government programs that benefit the less fortunate. Private charaties and individual giving will fill the gap, they say, even though the fact is that's a bunch of hooey".

"I'm sorry, but you can't appeal to the good nature of an individual who's morally depraved", the Liberal responded. "By the way, you're fired. Morally depravity is quite expensive and I can no longer afford your services. The booze, the women and the fine dining now consume all my discretionary income". "That is unfortunate", the life coach lamented. "Please get in touch with me if you ever decide to resurrect your former persona whose primary concern was spreading the truth".

"I will do that", the Liberal agreed. "I'm so schizophrenic that I may just circle around again to that personality". "That guy seriously needs help", the life coach thought to himself as the Liberal departed. "He didn't mention any harder drugs, but often times those are the substances morally depraved individuals will partake in. Perhaps I should contact his friends and family and set up an intervention". Then the life coach remembered he had just been fired. "That Liberal may have been a good customer for awhile, but I don't work for free". He then put the troubles of the Liberal out of his head and promised himself that he'd concentrate on solving the problems of paying customers.

After engaging in morally depraved acts for several weeks the Liberal felt that he had been laid low. "I believe the saying, only the good die young, was most likely total bullshit propagated by sinners practicing the morally depraved lifestyle", the Liberal informed his doctor when asked what ailed him. "I agree with your diagnosis", the doctor responded. "However, you've been late in paying your bills, and my advice isn't free", the doctor continued. "Unfortunately I'm going to have to ask you to leave right now unless you can settle your account in cash".

"That's the solution!", the Liberal declared, jumping off the examining table and rushing out the door. Later he met with his stockbroker. "I've decided to become a greedy capitalist pig", the Liberal announced. "That's the spirit", the stockbroker shouted gleefully. "I've pooled my remaining funds and now hand everything over to you", the Liberal said, presenting the stockbroker with a suitcase filled with cash. "The winners I've selected are written on a piece of paper inside", he instructed. "Buy those stocks and we will both be rich men".

"Wouldn't you rather rely on my advice? That is what you're paying me for", the bewildered stockbroker queried. "I would not", the Liberal responded. "As you recall I am now a greedy capitalist pig, and as everyone knows -- the system is rigged in our favor. The stocks I've selected will surely increase in value". "If you say so, the stockbroker responded. Just remember that I get paid my commission either way". "Have faith", the Liberal reassured his financial expert. "I used to be an ayatollah, and it just so happens that I can still access those lines of communication. This information comes from on high".

"Plus", he revealed, "all one really has to do is examine what the Congressional Republicans are up to. Who are they voting against ending subsidies for? Which industries are they proposing be further deregulated? From which lobbyists are they receiving the most donations? The corporations that the Republicans favor will be the businesses that I buy stock in. In other words, if you can't beat em, make money with em".

The Liberal exited the room, leaving the stockbroker alone with the suitcase of money. "That guy's kukoo", the stockbroker thought to himself. "Still, let me check and see if his selections are any good". A smile crept over his face after opening the suitcase and examining the list. "Clearly that Liberal has successfully completed the transformation into a greedy capitalist pig".

Several weeks later the Liberal rolled up to his former place of worship in a brand new sports car. "I've decided to make a sizeable donation to ease my conscience", the Liberal informed his pastor. "I was under the impression that you had forsaken your faith", the pastor responded. "After enjoying a life of debauchery for awhile I eventually decided to renounce all my vices except one", the Liberal admitted.

"As you probably deduced from the expensive sports car I arrived in, I am doing very well. I am now a greedy capitalist pig". "I am sorry to hear that", the Liberal's pastor consoled him. "As you know, being a Liberal myself (as was Jesus) I do not teach the prosperity gospel. That's a Conservative fairy tale Republicans use to justify their greed".

"I'm not looking to justify my greed, I'm only interested in mollifying my guilty conscience -- hence the sizeable donation". "I will accept your donation, as it will help alleviate the suffering of my many parishioners affected by this conservative-caused recession. I will also pray for your soul. May you once again spread the truth instead of succumbing to delusions of being a judge, an ayatollah, or a lord. May you also cease your acts of moral depravity" the pastor intoned, laying his hands upon the downtrodden Liberal.

"I believe you have lost your way, my son", the holy man remarked. "Otherwise you wouldn't have concluded that the Conservatives cannot be beat. Our creator said, For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. In our time it is Rich Republican a-holes who are the evildoers that passage refers to", the pastor explained. "Why, I've never heard you speak like this from the pulpit!", the surprised Liberal exclaimed. "Of course not", the pastor revealed, "I don't want to lose my tax exempt status. I feel free to speak my mind in private, however".

"The only act which will wash away your guilt is for you to return to your former truth-telling ways", the pastor informed the Liberal. "I implore you to take some time and pray on it. If, however, in the meantime you decide to make another sizeable donation...". "Thank you for the advice, I will certainly take it under consideration", the Liberal interrupted, pressing a check into the pastor's hand.

"Before you go", the pastor said, taking hold of the Liberal's wrist, "I want to let you know how much I enjoy your blog". The Liberal looked confused. Then he said, "I don't blog. I've never even been online. You must have me mixed-up with some other morally depraved former truth teller who became a greedy capitalist pig".

"I guess so, unlikely as that sounds", the disbelieving pastor replied. "Perhaps my advice could help this other individual who traveled a remarkably similar path". "I think it could", the Liberal agreed. "Perhaps you should contact this other lost soul and similarly console him". "I may do just that", the pastor said -- but the Liberal had already gone. Looking out a window the pastor saw the Liberal hop into the front seat of his sports car and take off down the road at what must be a speed that quickly exceeded the legal limit. The pastor turned and sat down in front of his computer, opened a browser window and began surfing the internet.

Tearing Down FDR

2011-04-03T10:09:00.013-05:00

The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945) as quoted in his Second Inaugural Address (1/20/1937).

Welcome to the second installment of "Rebutting a Blogger Who Doesn't Believe in Taking Prisoners" wherein I refute the comments of a certain moderate blogger I've referred to in the past. (See the first installment for further explaination).

Liberals have it all wrong regarding 32nd President of the United States and progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Or they've got it partially wrong, at least. Today's progressives are so far to the Left that they make even FDR look like a moderate, or so one might believe if one were to listen to the Conservatives (and moderates) spin it.

It began with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's attack on the public sector unions. Scott decided his first order of business when he entered office was going to be a big tax giveaway to benefit his state's corporations. Wisconsin was running a slight surplus, but Scott's proposed tax cut would put Wisconsin deep in the red. Scott determined that the solution would be to cut the wages and benefits of government workers. He knew he would take a lot of flack for this action, so he decided to blame the greedy unions (instead of himself) for Wisconsin's financial woes (which didn't exist prior to his taking office).

It turned out to be a two-for! Scott's corporate buddies got their tax cut paid for on the backs of working class public servants, and Scott got to engage in some old-fashioned union busting. Since the Republicans held large majorities in both of the state's Houses of Congress, the "union bosses" knew they would most certainly have to make some concessions. Which is why they immediately agreed to Scott's demands that they accept a pay cut AND contribute additional dollars to their health care plans and pension accounts. The only thing they asked is that Scott not take away their collective bargining rights.

Scott, knowing that the greedy unions could be stopped once and for all, refused. He was only executing the will of the people. The stupid Conservative sheeple cheered him on; even FDR was on their side! We know this because FDR said, "...the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service". BLOGGER WH used this quote in a post he titled "Straight From the Progressive's Mouth" (2/22/2011). All over the internets Conservatives pointed to this quote and drew the obvious conclusion -- FDR and Scott Walker would have agreed that public sector unions are bad.

Most of these Conservatives quoted a 2/19/2011 Real Clear Politics article which stated that "FDR's Ghost Is Smiling on Wisconsin's Governor". Do they really expect us to believe that FDR would have been cool with Walker's partisan union busting? FYI, we know Scott's union busting was partisan because when the Wisconsin Democratic Senators fled the state to prevent a quorm, the Senate Republicans spun off the union busting provision of the "budget repair" bill into a seperate piece of legislation. A quorum is only necessary when the legislation in question is fiscal in nature. In other words they ADMITTED that the union busting had absolutely nothing to do with "repairing" Wisconsin's budget.

On 2/21/2011 a Daily Kos blogger authored a post titled, "GOP Lying About FDR Again". In the post the DK blogger made the point that "FDR did not oppose public employee unions. He opposed strikes by federal public employee unions". Said DK blogger further explained that FDR opposed strikes because "Federal [employees have an] obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of government activities".

Government workers provide essential services that (in many cases) the people DEPEND on. In the private sector if a product or service isn't currently availble for purchase -- because the employees that manufacture the product or provide the service are striking, then the consumer has the option to go to the private sector company's competitor. This isn't an option when the product or service is being provided by government workers. Thus FDR's concern regarding strikes by public sector employees is understandable.

However, aside from being opposed to public sector employees striking, FDR believed "organizations of government employees have a logical place in government affairs", and that "organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical". This is according to a letter FDR wrote to Luther Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees; a letter in which he closes by saying, "I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding...".

Why would FDR congratulate a public sector union on it's founding if didn't believe it should exist? Also, isn't collective bargaining one of the primary reasons for forming a union? BLOGGER WH categorically rejected my reasoning. In response to my arguement (as outlined above) BLOGGER WH reposted the initial FDR quote, this time in ALL CAPS. You can't argue with that logic, I conceeded, eventually giving up and bowing out of the discussion.

FDR also once said that "a conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward". The point is that times change. In 1962 President Kennedy signed an executive order giving public employee unions the right to collectively bargain with federal government agencies.

In FDR's day the US government stood clearly on the side of labor. Today that is not so much the case. In fact I'd argue that our government is now decidedly pro-corporate (see my 12/7/2010 post, "How The Wealthy Elites Stole Our Prosperity" for that argument). Given this fact would FDR still believe that collective bargaining "cannot be transplanted into the public service"? Even though there was nuance to his position which Conservatives apparently are missing (or are chosing to ignore), I believe his opinion would be slightly different today given the increasingly hostile environment Labor finds itself subjected to.

Foul Play Suspected in the Disappearance of Liberal Blogger

2011-04-02T13:20:00.012-05:00

The gap between the rich and everyone else is growing. Even Alan Greenspan believes that this gap is not good for American democracy. But there is a solution -- it involves workers organizing and uniting to force the changes that will create a new American middle class, just as our fathers and grandfathers did in the years following World War II ~ Anna Burger (b. 9/27/1950) former Secretary-Treasurer of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Chair of the Change to Win Federation. In February, 2009, Burger was appointed to President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Liberal HQ division chief Laura Fawkes picked up her phone on the first ring. "Hello Dervish", she said, noting the name that appeared on her caller ID. "This isn't Dervish, it's Janeane Garner", the voice on the other end of the line said. "I'm an investigator who works with Dervish". "The reason I'm calling is because Dervish is missing". "Until a few days ago he was in his office every day, then he simply vanished". "He probably decided to shut his blog down", Laura replied. "Although he hasn't filed the appropriate paperwork".

"No, I'm positive he had determined to keep the blog up and running", Janeane insisted. "In fact, I know that he was supposed to meet with a representative of George Soros to obtain additional funding for Sleeping With The Devil". "The representative called yesterday and said that Dervish didn't show up". "That is strange", Laura agreed. "I'll look into it and let you know what I find out".

"I've already started asking around", Janeane retorted. "The doorman Frank said the last time he saw Dervish was when he left for the day on Monday". "I also called his home and his cell, but all my calls go to voice mail". "That is strange" said Laura, growing concerned. "I've know Dervish for several years, and, although there have been times when he stayed away from the office for days at a time, I've always been able to contact him by phone". "There is a specific reason, however", Janeane interjected, "why I'm concerned that something untoward may have occurred". "What are you talking about!", Laura exclaimed, obviously alarmed. "You're not suggesting foul play, are you?".

"That's it exactly", Janeane replied. "Frank got back to me right before I called you". "He said he went out to the parking lot and Dervish's car wasn't there, but he did find a small amount of blood near his reserved space". "And, even more concerning is that Monday's video surveillance footage DVD of the parking lot can't be found". "Frank said only our security man has access to the surveillance room". "This is looking worse and worse", Laura concluded. "I'm going to schedule a meeting with our head of security, Rusty Farber. Please meet me in his office 30 minutes from now". "I'll be there", Janeane replied, hanging up the phone.

A half hour later everyone gathered in Rusty Farber's office -- the division chief Laura Fawkes, SWTD investigator Janeane Garner and concierge Frank Lukas. Rusty stepped to the front of the room. "First of all, I want everyone to know that I am on top of the situation", Rusty began. "Here is what we know as of now -- one of our bloggers, a Mr. Dervish has been missing since Monday. A small amount of blood was found in the parking lot near Mr. Dervish's space. Also, and these are the two things that concern me most, the surveillance DVD from Monday is missing and the GPS on Mr. Dervish's company car is non-functional. In my opinion someone STOLE the DVD and DISABLED the GPS tracking".

"Now, as you know we cannot go to the police, so we're going to have to handle the situation ourselves". "Why is that?", a questioning voice interrupted. Everyone turned and starred at the young woman who had just entered the room carrying a box of donuts. "What, did you just fall off the turnip truck young lady", Rusty inquired, clearly flustered. "Please excuse my newly-hired intern", Laura replied, "She just moved here from out of state". "That explains it", said Rusty.

"For the benefit of the young lady I shall elaborate", Rusty continued, "As almost everyone here already knows, a couple of weeks ago our new Republican Governor rammed the standard union-busting corporate tax giveaway legislation through the state senate. Shortly after passage the Governor appointed an Emergency Financial Manager to seize control of our city. Immediately EFM Reginald Kingston fired the mayor, all the local judges, and the entire police department -- which he replaced with a private security firm. The salaries and benefits of city workers were of course severely reduced". "That's terrible!", Laura's intern exclaimed.

Rusty's salt-and-pepper mustache bristled, his brow furrowed, and his demeanor became dead serious. "Indeed it is. Nobody ever expected it would be this easy for the Republicans to kill democracy". "Unless Washington is willing to do something drastic, like send in the national guard, our city is now essentially a dictatorship", Laura Fawkes concurred. "So far President Obama doesn't seem willing to step in and address the issue", Laura continued, expressing her concern.

"Maybe he's preoccupied with the situation in Libya?" Frank asked. "Or perhaps the Republican governors have some dirt on him?", someone who hadn't previously been a part of the conversation suggested. Suddenly Barry Sotomeyer barged into the room, pushing open the door that had been partially ajar. "I've heard that his Kenyan birth certificate was discovered and is being used as leverage against him", Barry chirped.

"That's bullshit", Rusty growled. "Barack Obama was born in Hawaii". Rusty paused, starring menacingly at the newcomer. Then he asked, in a more even-toned voice, "what the hell kind of Liberal are you?". "Also, what the F are you doing here? You weren't invited to this meeting". "Please excuse my intrusion", Barry apologized, his face growing red. "I heard about the meeting from Janeane -- or actually, I heard her talking on the phone about it. I didn't mean to listen in, but she's in the office right next to me and -- voices carry through the air ducts!", Barry feebly explained. "Anyway, the reason I'm here is because I have some information that might help in locating Dervish".

"Go ahead and spit it out", Rusty replied suspiciously. "Well, it's one of those officers from Tannis Protection, the private security firm hired by EFM Kingston. I saw one of them talking to Dervish last week. Dervish said the officer has been harassing him for awhile; trying to intimidate him into shutting down his blog". "I know all about it", Rusty said, cutting him off. "The detective's name is Smurf Jones. He introduced himself as a member of the Thought Police when I meet him last month. Then he shoved a badge in my face that had Tannis Protection printed on it. I had no choice but to allow him access to the building". "Anyway, everyone already knows this, as it was covered in the mandatory meeting I called immediately afterward".

"Of course, I remember the meeting Rusty", Barry retorted. "But I think that this Smurf fellow had a personal grudge against Dervish". "He never bothered me, in any case". "Well, not that I needed your help deducing this, but I agree with you about Smurf Jones", Rusty replied, noticeably annoyed. "I was actually going in that direction when you made your unwelcome entrance". Rusty paused, then turned back to his original audience. "Smurf Jones is involved, I feel it in my gut". "If that is the case, and I agree that it is", Laura Fawkes concurred, "The course of action that needs to be taken is clear. I will contact the Washington division immediately".

"Actually", Rusty cautioned, "My Washington source said to expect no help from them. All identified Washington agents are currently prohibited from leaving the city. My brother Randall is in charge there, and he said the new House leadership is looking for an excuse to arrest Liberals. According to him everyone in the Washington division is on the verge of being labeled an enemy combatant and disappeared". "I guess we've on our own then", Laura whispered, her face suddenly ashen.

Rebutting a Blogger Who Doesn't Believe in Taking Prisoners

2011-04-01T19:42:00.011-05:00

Listen, you little wiseacre: I'm smart; you're dumb; I'm big, you're little; I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it ~ Harry Wormwood, the antagonist & narrator (portrayed by Danny DeVito) from "Matilda", the 1996 film adaptation of the book by Roald Dahl.

This post was inspired by a certain moderate blogger I've referenced in the past. Recently he used his blog to go off on an individual (who he refers to as "JR") that offended him by insinuating he has an "agenda" of a Right-wing nature. This blog post was essentially a string of obscenities and insults, the gist of which was to suggest that anyone who gravitates to far to the Right OR to far to the Left (which is the case with JR), lives in a "cartoon-like universe of good and evil" and may very well be a "loathsome partisan lowlife".

How does one qualify to be labeled a "loathsome partisan lowlife" by the blogger whom I shall henceforth refer to as WH? It's possible that acquiring this badge of honor may be as simple as disagreeing with any of the conservative POVs he puts forth, even though he insists his tirade was provoked when the object of his scorn "mischaracterized" his position. Whether or not this actually is the case isn't going to be the subject of my post, however (Also, WH is, for the record, a moderate. While he often does regurgitate right-wing talking points, some of his political opinions are decidedly Left-ish -- I point this out least he accuse me of "mischaracterizing" him).

Anyway, the subject of my post is the application of another label BLOGGER WH applied to someone he disagrees with. In my opinion he got it wrong. Way wrong. I often cite Thom Hartmann, a progressive political commentator with his own radio program, on this blog and elsewhere. Why? Because he's the number one rated Liberal talker in the nation and I listen to him daily. And I also happen to agree with the majority of his political opinions.

The discussion with BLOGGER WH where this label application occurred concerned free trade. BLOGGER WH is in favor of it (by and large). According to BLOGGER WH, I (and other progressives, presumably) want to "nationalize industries, force people to join labor unions, raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, [and] build a trade wall around the entire country". Then he threw out the old Conservative canard that "the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1929 contributed greatly to the Depression".

This I had to respond to, as I believe the facts show this claim is total bunk (here's a link to an article by someone who uses the official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis to discredit this nonsense). I also quoted Mr. Hartmann who has written that he believes Smoot-Hawley "may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy (-1.4 percent at most according to many historians) [but] its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America". I also mentioned that Thom Hartmann has authored a book that covers the subject.

In response BLOGGER WH wrote, "Mr. Hartmann is a partisan hack. Dick Morris and Newt Gingrich write books, too. Any idiot can write a frigging book -- Sarah Palin wrote a frigging book" (March 29, 2011 7:19 PM).

According to Dictionary.com a "hack" is "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment".

Dick Morris is the a-hole who advised president Clinton to "pursue third way policies of triangulation that combined traditional Republican and Democratic proposals, rhetoric, and issues to achieve maximum political gain". The effect of Dick's advice was to move the Democratic Party forever to the Right (Obama being the second Democratic President to follow the Third Way). According to George Stephanopoulos, "over the course of the first nine months of 1995, no single person had more power over the president". Being a Liberal, I hate this guy intensely.

Dick Morris began working with the Clintons in 1978 when Bill ran for governor of Arkansas. When a prostitution scandal forced Morris to resign his advisory position in 1996 President Clinton "praised Morris as a friend, and thanked him for his years of service". After leaving the employ of the Clintons a grateful Morris embarked on a new career authoring a series of books trashing them. Dick Morris is a partisan hack.

Newt Gingrich pretends there is a possibility he might run for president. A 2/28/2011 Politico article reveals that Newt Gingrich raised 14.5 million dollars in 2010 via his fundraising organization "American Solutions". A large chunk of that money was paid to "The Gingrich Group" in return for "administrative services". This story was also covered by Rachel Maddow on 3/3/2011 with a story she called "He's Faking It". Pretending to run for president is only one of many Newt Gingrich scams designed to separate Right-wing fools from their money. Newt also gives out "awards" in exchange for the modest fee of $5,000. Newt Gingrich is a partisan hack.

Sarah Palin, taking a cue from Mr. Gingrich, does what she can to maintain the illusion that she might run for president. As long as there is a possibility she might run, interest in her books, speaking engagements, Fox News gig, and reality program remains artificially high. If Palin were not MAYBE running for president would interest in the half-term governor who quit be as high? Would she be raking in quite as much dough? I think not. Pretending to run for president, while not actual work, pays very handsomely. Sarah Palin is a partisan hack. (Another person milking this cash cow is, in my opinion, Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee will not run a second time. He's also a partisan hack).

Thom Hartmann, on the other hand, clearly believes in what he's selling (or not selling). Evidence of this is the fact that he's giving away books he has written for free. Truthout.org has serialized two of his books: 2010's Rebooting the American Dream and the newly revised edition of Unequal Protection (originally published in 2004). When informing his listeners how they could read these books online for free, Thom mentioned that his publisher was against it because his book (the first one) was selling quite well. He also allows non-commercial affiliates to carry his radio program at no charge.

Thom Hartmann also won't do suck up interviews. Occasionally the topic comes up and he says some politicians will only agree to come on the program if the questions are pre-approved, and Thom Hartman refuses. This isn't something a hack would do. On 12/8/2010 Thom Hartmann had White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the program. Dan Pfeiffer came on to defend the deal President Obama had struck with the Republicans to extend the bush tax cuts (which had not yet been passed at the time of the interview). Thom grilled him for the entire nine-minute segment, all the time trying to convince Mr. Pfeiffer that the tax compromise was a bad deal. Afterward Thom remarked that he believed he probably burned some bridges with that interview and that he would not be asked back to the White House again, but so be it. This is not the kind of behavior you'd expect from a hack.

The accusation made by BLOGGER WH that Thom Hartmann is a partisan hack is not supported by the facts. So why did he make it? I think it was simply because BLOGGER WH didn't like the quote from Thom Hartmann I presented to him. In rebutting my argument in favor of protectionism BLOGGER WH asked if I had ever heard of Frank William Taussig, an economist who (in addition to dying 61 years ago) is "credited with creating the foundations of modern trade theory". My bad, I guess if I'm going to argue trade policy I should've known who this guy is. BLOGGER WH, having trapped me into admitting my ignorance, declared victory, pointing out that it "spoke volumes" that I "had heard of Thom Hartmann and not Frank William Taussig". Snap!

What irks me is that he goes off on another blogger for mischaracterizing his views when he had already mischaracterized Thom Hartmann as a partisan hack, a person BLOGGER WH obviously knows very little about. As I've demonstrated, Thom Hartmann is anything but a partisan hack. And then BLOGGER WH belittles me when he asks if I've heard of some important economist and I admit I hadn't.

So my views on free trade are "cartoon-like partisan extremist illogical crap"... I can understand how a moderate would reach that conclusion. Obviously I don't agree that my views are cartoon-like, partisan, extremist, or illogical, but whatever -- that doesn't bother me (as bad as it sounds). What I don't care for is the hypocrisy. And the fact that whenever he makes what he considers a brilliant retort in response to my "crap" he concludes with an "LOL".

Further Reading

Dick Morris Admits He Lied About Clinton, Reno & Waco by TheJushuaBlog 4/21/2010
Dick Morris' Clinton Book Is a Back-Stabbing Bio by News Hounds 8/11/2005

Liberal Blogger Harrassed by GOP Goons

2011-03-28T10:34:00.004-05:00

Truth is condemned as a trap; justice is jeered at; saints are harassed as social enemies. Hence this Incarnation has come to uphold the Truth and suppress the False ~ Sathya Sai Baba (b. 11/23/1926) a popular Indian guru, spiritual figure and educator.

"Sorry to hear about your blog", my next door neighbor commented as I stepped out of my office into the hallway. "What do you mean Barry", I asked. "Well, I heard from the local division chief that you were shutting it down", Barry explained. "I haven't decided yet", I replied. "I just authored a new post that received a comment almost immediately". "One comment? I think perhaps you should stick with your original decision", Barry snickered. I closed the door to my office and locked it, preventing any unauthorized individuals from gaining access.

"I thought you said you were sorry Barry. Telling me I should stick with my original decision implies that you'd be glad if I terminated my blog". "Honestly", Barry remarked, "I've had my eye on your office for quite some time. Mine is just a converted storage closet". "I could use the extra space", Barry continued. "Perhaps I could even hire some of your investigative staff". "My blog's readership is actually increasing, unlike yours".

"Let me guess, the member of my staff you're interested in hiring is Janeane?". "Forget it Barry, you don't have a shot with her. She thinks you're a creep". "What?!", Barry exclaimed, "I think you just want her for yourself". Barry paused, apparently formulating a thought. Then he said, "you can't eliminate the competition that easily". "Look, Barry, we may be compatriots in the Liberal cause, but, other than that, I've never liked you. I suggest you leave Janeane alone", I said, poking Barry in the chest with my finger. "Or what", Barry inquired, "trying to get me to back off by telling me how you'll cry your eyes out after I bed her won't evoke any sympathy from me".

"As if there is any chance of that happening", I replied. "Now, excuse me, but I've got somewhere else I need to be". I turned away from Barry and walked briskly down the hallway and proceeded down the wide spiral marble staircase. I swiftly crossed the large ornately decorated lobby. Circling the fountain and large granite statue of striking union members, I walked between a pair of towering stone pillars and headed for the front exit. "Have a nice evening, Mr. Dervish", the doorman politely implored as he opened the door for me. "Thank you very much Frank, you have a very nice night yourself", I replied as I passed though the open doorway and into the courtyard in front of Liberal Headquarters.

Out in the parking lot I spotted Detective Smurf Jones leaning against my Ford Focus. "Nice car. I wish I could afford something like this", Jones said, standing up straight. "Unfortunately that's not possible given my public servant wages". "Jones, I don't understand why you're here", I said, baffled. "I thought you had finished your report on my blog. You're not harassing me on your own time, are you?".

"Absolutely not", Jones answered. "I was straight with you when I said my report recommended my unit cease it's investigation of your blog". "However, my captain wasn't convinced. I told him that you were shutting down your blog, but then you went and published another commentary. Also, and not that this is any of your business, I've been temporarily reassigned back to your case. Apparently the brass doesn't like it when you use a rocket launcher to blow up a bus full of nuns".

"Now, wait a minute!" another voice shouted. A man stepped out from behind a nearby topiary and continued talking as he covered the few steps between me, Jones, and the manicured shrub he had been standing behind. "I did NOT blow up a busload of nuns. They had already disembarked when my bazooka accidentally fired". "Yes, only the driver was killed", Jones agreed. "This is my partner, Tony Hawkins", Jones explained, addressing me again.

"Now I've got TWO of you trying to intimidate me?", I inquired incredulously. "Only temporarily, until the investigation regarding the incident at the Canadian border is concluded", answered Hawkins. "Listen, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, nor do I care", I said, opening the door of my Focus using the remote on my key chain. "Now excuse me, gentlemen, but I've got to go". "Not so fast, Liberal", Jones barked, grabbing me by the arm. "We have unfinished business".

Conservatives Are Astonishingly Stupid

2011-03-27T16:15:00.004-05:00

During the period 1951-63, when marginal rates were at their peak -- 91 percent or 92 percent -- the American economy boomed, growing at an average annual rate of 3.71 percent. The fact that the marginal rates were what would today be viewed as essentially confiscatory did not cause economic cataclysm -- just the opposite. And during the past seven years, during which we reduced the top marginal rate to 35 percent, average growth was a more meager 1.71 percent ~ Eliot Spitzer (b. 6/10/1959) former Governor of New York and current co-host of the CNN political commentary program "In the Arena", as quoted in his 2/23/2011 Slate magazine article, "Tax Fraud".

Question: What's the difference between a Liberal and a puppy?

Answer: A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

The above "joke" is from the "best-selling" book, "365 Ways to Drive a Liberal Crazy", by Libertarian Conservative dumbass James Delingpole. Upon reading the setup I assumed the punch line would mention how puppies are born blind but later open their eyes -- unlike Liberals. This is the joke (or some variation of it) I'm sure most people are familiar with. Mr. Delingpole must have never owned a dog, or known anyone who owned a dog. As a pet owner (or pet guardian, as a politically correct Liberal might refer to himself) I can say unequivocally that adult dogs whine -- quite frequently, in fact.

Another way a Conservative can drive a Liberal crazy, according to Mr. Delingpole, is to use the words "Oppressive" or "Regressive" instead of "Progressive". Then feign puzzlement when called on their incorrect language usage, asking, "how is it progress to steal free citizens' liberties, money, and hope, and hand it all over to government bureaucrats"?

I'm a subscriber to Mr. Delingpole's newsletter, and every day he sends me an email containing another method by which Conservatives can drive Liberals crazy. Most of them are as stupid (or stupider) than the two provided examples. Delingpoole obviously believes that, to drive a Liberal crazy, one must ignore the advice of Abraham Lincoln who said, "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt". One Amazon reviewer accurately describes the book as "a celebration of ignorance".

Conservative ignorance is most apparent when it comes to the issue of taxation. For some reason Cons believe that cutting taxes for wealthy individuals is the most effective way to stimulate economic activity. Some of them seem to think that it is the only way. Which is why they insisted tax cuts be a part of the Democrat's stimulus bill -- the stimulus bill they almost immediately began to claim had "failed".

In reality it was their tax cuts that failed to produce economic stimulation. Specifically it was (and continues to be) the bush tax cuts that are supressing the recovery. A 3/1/2011 article by Larry Beinhart on Alternet makes the point that "history shows that when spending is cut -- in the name of balancing the budget -- recessions immediately follow".

When he decided to extend the bush tax cuts for an additional two years President Obama said he had no choice because the Republicans were holding benefits for unemployed people hostage. After the Republicans got the tax cuts for the rich they had demanded (significantly increasing the deficit in the process) Congress repealed DADT and passed a number of other pieces of significant legislation in the lame duck session.

Politically moderate citizens across the nation rejoiced at what they (incorrectly) perceived as bipartisanship -- and the president's popularity increased. Unfortunately what they apparently did not realize is the fact that the "compromise" actually sabotaged the prospect of an economic recovery.

On the 11/4/2010 broadcast of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program economist Ravi Batra said "3 or 4 months ago... [I] said to you that, if the government spending stays where it is we'll be stuck at the bottom, and we'll stabilize at the bottom. And that is essentially what we are seeing. Even now there are layoffs in the economy, although there is some growth. But now that we have this new leadership from the Tea Party and the Republicans... They're going to put even more constraints on government spending, and I think a double-dip is for sure now".

Taxes are at a historical low, and the deficit and national debt are at an all-time high. The last Republican administration passed their tax cuts (which went primarily to the wealthy) at a time when we had a budget SURPLUS. Then they spent trillions on two (illegal) wars. Finally, financial deregulation, as championed by Conservatives, lead to a housing bubble burst which brought our economy to it's knees.

Even though they are still pro-tax cutting, pro-war, and pro-deregulation, they believe continued high unemployment can be solely attributed to President Obama and the Democrats. Either the Republicans are astonishingly stupid or this is all part of a long running plan to impoverish the middle class and funel even more money into the hands of the upper one percent.

Apparently the American people are that stupid. Many of the voters who helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 didn't bother showing up to rebuke the Republicans in the 2010 mid-term. Disillusioned moderate and Tea Party idiots were duped by Koch-funded "grassroots" organizations into showing up and voting against their own interests, which allowed the Republicans to seize control of the House and proclaim the American people had sent a message. The message was we needed to do more of the same shit (cut taxes and spending) that brought about the recession to begin with!

This is why the Cons have been circulating the ridiculous conspiracy theory which suggests it was progressives who are responsible for the 2008 crash. It was excessive tax cuts, two lengthy wars, or deregulation that we can attribute the downturn to -- the reason we are in a recession is because Democrats forced Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and private banks to give risky mortgages to irresponsible poor people.

Now they're setting up another economic downturn which they will blame on the President and the Democrats. The mind-blowing thing is that their strategy to win back the White House in 2012 may work. I think the chance of a president Palin or Bachman are quite low, but what about President Romney or Pawlenty (who Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC's "The Last Word" believes will be the GOP nominee). Whoever the Republican challenger is, they will be, without doubt, a worse choice that our current president. Yet, some Democratic voters say there isn't much difference between the two parties. Some may vote for a third party candidate (who can NOT win), or stay home (in which case the Republican WILL win).

I've seen comments on a number of progressive blogs expressing disappointment with Obama. He isn't a Socialist and he surely isn't the most Liberal president ever. He's a moderate corporate-appeasing Democrat at best. But this does NOT mean progressives should HELP elect a Republican president (by throwing their vote away)! To my fellow progressives I say, if this course of action isn't astonishingly stupid, it is at least an exceedingly bad idea.

The War on Terror Babies

2011-03-21T15:43:00.006-05:00

It's a really convoluted and time-consuming way to wage jihad, to be sure, but when your goal is to destroy Western Civilization, you'll stop at nothing ~ Tim Murphy of Mother Jones Magazine; as quoted in his 3/16/2011 article, "The Return of the Terror Babies".

"Hey! Careful, you almost knocked over my abortion!" detective Tony Hawkins shouted at the intern who had just rudely bumped his desk. "That was a personal gift from the Representative", Hawkins bellowed at the cowering teenager. "Easy, the kid didn't do it on purpose", his partner Smurf Jones cautioned. "If anything happens to this", he said, pointing to the jar on his desk, "I'm going to hold you personally responsible, runt", Hawkins growled, grabbing the frightened youngster by the collar. "Yes, sir" the intern squeaked, his prepubescent voice cracking. "You see to it", said Hawkins, releasing him.

The intern scurried off. "You know" Jones said, "the abortion Representative Ghomert was referring to was ObamaCare, and not an actual human fetus in a jar. That thing on your desk couldn't possibly have come from the Representative". "Well", Hawkins replied, "The messenger that delivered it said it was from Ghomert's office". "And", he contiuned, "There's a personal message attached". "It says, to my favorite TP detective, yours truly, LG".

"Whatever", said Jones, "I think it's disgusting and you should get rid of it". "That's the point", Hawkins explained, "Abortion isn't pretty. This specimen would have grown up to become a contributing member of society, if some murderous Liberal hadn't convinced it's poor mother to terminate it".

"Can we go already?", Jones asked. "Just let me grab my bazooka", Hawkins replied, striding across the precinct room floor toward the weapons locker. Later, after he had retrieved his weapon, he met up with Jones outside the station. Hawkins slammed down the cruiser's trunk (after placing his weapon inside) and then slid into the front seat. "Representative Gohmert is counting on us", Hawkins informed his partner. "This is a top secret mission straight from Washington", he continued, "my Canadian contact believes a busload of pregnant Muslim females may be attempting to cross over sometime in the next several days".

"Dirty Canadian socialists", Jones muttered under his breath. "It's not much better here", Hawkins agreed, "at least the last election went a ways to setting things straight". "Without ACORN to steal votes they can't win", Jones remarked. "What I wouldn't give to be the one who personally slapped the cuffs on the Kenyan and escorted him from the White House", Hawkins replied.

"Are you forgetting that ObamaCare was recently ruled unconstitutional?", Jones asked his partner. "At most he'll be president for two more years. Thanks to the efforts of the Tea Party he won't be able to run again in 2012. So far 11 states have proposed legislation requiring proof of citizenship from anyone running for POTUS in their state".

"From your lips to God's ears", Hawkins sighed. "The long national nightmare is close to being over". "And with a Republican-controlled House to hold him in check the poser can't do any more damage while he illegally occupies the White House". "The only thing I'm worried about is funding for our special task force", Hawkins continued. "Or I would be, if funding for our department was actually on the books". Both Hawkins and Jones laughed. "That's a good one", Jones said with tears in his eyes. Then they drove, arriving at the Canadian border approximately 13 hours later.

"You book us a room while I make contact with my informant", Hawkins told his partner. "Will do", said Jones. He checked in and waited. A half-hour later Hawkins returned. "Here's the scoop", Hawkins said, filling his partner in. "My contact believes a bus full of nuns that crossed the border yesterday was a dry run for the terror baby plot". "That's good news", Jones grinned, "I'm looking forward to nailing these bitches. And by nail I mean arrest, not have sex with". "You said it, partner", Hawkins agreed. "We'll deport the Godless Muslim whores back to Islamistan, or whatever third-world hellhole they originated from".

Liberal Shill Reveals Why The Left Hates America

2011-03-20T18:40:00.007-05:00

...I have tremendous pride in being a Left-wing Liberal shill. I think that it's a fine thing to be in favor of the people rather than the corporations in America. If you want to call and defend the rights of millionaires and billionaires, or the rights of corporations to trample on us, or the rights of the health insurers to recind our policies when we get sick, or to say, no we won't insure your kid, that's fine. I'll own up to the fact that I'm on the opposite side of that argument -- proudly ~ Radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, responding to a Conservative caller's accusation that he was without pride in bashing the Right (The Thom Hartmann Program, 1/6/011).

I ran the title of my latest blog post by my local division chief. "That's a blog post an EX-Liberal would publish", she exclaimed. "You're not planning on leaving the fold, are you?", she inquired. "No mam", I said, "it's just that readership at Sleeping with the Devil is way down... I was looking for a headline that would grab people's attention". "Try something involving sex and the notorious Liberal acceptance of that which is deviant", she suggested. "I apologize, but, even though I'm a Liberal, that kind of thing just isn't second nature for me", I lamented. "Perhaps we should meet later tonight so I can impart some experience which may prove useful in stimulating your creativity".

"There already is a blog that uses that gimmick", I said, turning to leave. "It's called The Stinkhole of Moral Depravity". "I can't just copy someone else's blog. I have to do my own thing". "Your loss", said the division chief as her office door swung shut behind me. I slunk back to my office and flicked on the lights. To my surprise, there, sitting at my desk was detective Smurf Jones. "You again", I exclaimed. "I already told you, I don't know where any of the bodies are buried". "The union bosses don't trust me with that information". "Come on", said Jones, "I have it on good authority that you're currently working on a post for your blog which reveals why the Left hates America".

"Exactly how did you come by this information?", I asked, shocked. "Anyway, that title was only meant to draw people into reading my blog, I wasn't really going to reveal why Liberals hate America -- because they don't". "They love it".

"Sure", Jones remarked sarcastically. "On the other hand, perhaps you're telling the truth -- about the title, not that Liberals don't hate America". "Because I know for a fact that they do". "Anyway, I've been looking over your computer files and see a lot of half completed articles". "They all seem to concern the vast Right-wing conspiracy and how Conservatism is ruining America". "Typical Liberal crap, in other words", Jones said disgustedly. "Honestly, Liberals make me sick". "I was hoping that perhaps you'd come to your senses".

"No such luck, detective". "I'm a Liberal through and through, and will be so till the day I die". "And, even though my readers have apparently abandoned me, I'll continue blogging about what I believe in".

"My captain back at Thought Police headquarters somehow got it into his head that Sleeping with the Devil was one of the more prestigious Liberal blogs", detective Jones remarked. "But", Jones continued, "he was wrong". "I'm sad to say that this will be the last time I visit you". "I've finished my report on your blog and my conclusion is that it sucks and nobody reads it".

"Inconsequential and unworthy of further attention is my report's conclusion", Jones said with a grin on his face. "I'm disappointed that my investigation didn't turn up any dirt, but it always makes my day to put a smug self-rightous Liberal in his place -- by letting him know his pathetic blog is a total waste of time". "You got a couple of followers but it does not appear as though any of them ever returned after initially adding you to their reading list".

"I'm glad my failure to attract a readership amuses you", I lied. "Perhaps I'll take your advice and shut down Sleeping with The Devil". "It's been almost two months since I published anything anyway. If anyone has visited recently they probably concluded that the blog HAD been shuttered".

"I like your defeatist attitude, Liberal". Detective Jones patted me on the shoulder as he exited the room. "That's it, I'm done for the day", I said out loud as I shut down my computer. The decision regarding whether or not additional blog posts are ever published shall be decided later.

Activist Tea Party Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

2011-02-05T14:59:00.012-06:00

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place ~ Reagan appointed Florida Federal judge Roger Vision, in his 1/31/2011 ruling declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

"A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under a cloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court"; according to a 1/31/2011 Huffington Post article. The judge's ruling, which included an obvious shout-out to the Tea Party, was characterized by the White House as "a plain case of judicial overreaching".

Four court rulings have thus far been handed down -- with two judges upholding the health care legislation and two judges ruling against it. The two ruling in favor of ObamaCare were Democratic appointees, while the two ruling against were Republican appointees. A 2/1/2011 CNN reporter believes the case could head to the Supreme Court "as soon as later this year". How the Supreme Court will rule is "far less predictable than it might seem from the ruling by Judge Vinson". A 2/4/2011 article from Global Research points out that while "The five Republican-appointed judges certainly embrace the political rhetoric of the ultra-right ... the entire court, including the four Democratic appointees, has been assiduously pro-corporate in their ruling[s]".

How the Supreme Court ultimately decides, I believe, will depend on what the health insurance companies truly desire, and not the what the Tea Party wants. Will the health insurance corporations want to overturn a law that mandates virtually every American purchase their product? Businessweek says "Insurers and other health care companies view the mandate as the law's bedrock -- and the source of new profits".

Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says, in regards to elements of the legislation that he agrees with, "[they] need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented". Because "Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father", my guess would be that the individual mandate is one of the "strong elements" he agrees with.

So, while FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe and Utah's Tea Party Senator Mike Lee believe ObamaCare will be overturned, I think the Tea Partiers, including those who responded to a recent World Net Daily poll (see below), may end up quite disappointed.

On the other hand, we know that (at least) two Supreme Court justices are sympathetic to the Tea Party. Antonin Scalia met with the House Tea Party caucus on 1/24/2011. Law professor and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Turley observed that the closed-door get-together, "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress". And then there's Ginny Thomas, wife of SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas, who "started a nonprofit Tea Party-affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central [to oppose the] leftist tyranny of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats". Ginny's group has lobbied against the health care legislation.

Can the House Republicans, which recently voted to repeal the "job killing" health care legislation, count on their activist Supreme Court allies to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional, or will the activists on the Supreme Court back their corporate buddies instead? I can't find anyone who believes with certainty the outcome will be one over the other. What do you think?

Further Reading

Congress Passes Socialized Medicine and Mandates Health Insurance -- In 1798 by Rick Ungar, Forbes 1/17/2011
Our Socialist Founding Fathers by Mark Brown, Jurist 10/12/2009