My Message From The Extraterrestrials

When it talks about the sky people, how everyone comes from the sky and how the Pyramids were used for star observations, it's too much for me. It all seems to connect the dots. It's blowing my mind -- Katy Perry (dob 10/25/1984) as quoted in a 6/22/2011 Rolling Stone article during which Perry discusses her obsession with the History Channel show Ancient Aliens.

Someone recorded an episode of Ancient Aliens on my DVR. Another individual in the household who has an interest in this type of nonsense. I know I surely did not record it, as the message of the program is that aliens have been guiding humanity throughout our history... keeping us on the right path and nudging humans in the right direction from time to time, mostly thorough "unearthly inspirations compelling ordinary people to perform extraordinary acts". According to the show the aliens "thought it best to use members of the human population to communicate their message".

I decided to watch the program, despite my extreme skepticism. In the last 20 minutes of the hour-long program the narrator said, "in the Bible's book of Genesis, God instructs Abraham to kill his only son". Then the narrator asked, "but was this command really given by God?". An on screen "expert" theorized that "Abraham received multiple messages from more than one being", and that this explained why Abraham received contradictory messages... one message instructing him to kill his son and another telling him to spare his son's life.

It was because two different groups of aliens were feeding him messages. These two contradictory messages were given by representatives of two warring civilizations, or tribes of aliens who each wanted something completely different for humanity.

The people who came up with the Ancient Astronaut theory must be completely nuts, right? The Wikipedia page for the show says detractors have criticized the theories presented on the program as pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Another critic says "Ancient Aliens defies all ability to suspend disbelief for the sake of entertainment". Finally, a science writer for the Smithsonian website "characterized the show as some of the most noxious sludge in television's bottomless chum bucket".

Wow. That is pretty damning, right? You'd have to be pretty stupid to even entertain for one second that any of the theories presented in this program are remotely plausible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that I was one of the ordinary humans compelled to perform extraordinary acts! Yes, watching this program triggered a repressed memory of the time I was abducted by aliens from another planet and instructed to spread their message... a message designed to guide humanity along the right path, so that we might reach our true potential.

But the show said many people chosen to carry this message might decide to keep quiet due to fear of being branded as crazy. And that is exactly what happened in my case. I told the aliens to find someone else to relate their message to the world. But then they explained that all I needed to do was start a blog with which I could educate the public regarding the virtue of Progressive politics. We must all come together and help one another my alien friend explained. That is the only way humanity can move forward. If we chose the wrong path it would lead to our extinction at our own hands he told me.

What is the wrong path?, I asked. The wrong path is the one presented by Conservatives, a tall lanky gray-skinned extraterrestrial informed me via mental telepathy. I starred into a pair of large black eyes in an even larger egg-shaped bald head. The alien next informed me that some humans are finding their inspiration from another group of ETs who they are engaged in a centuries old conflict with. After eons of war resulted in an unending stalemate the two warring groups got together and worked out a method by which they would resolve their differences without any further bloodshed.

Humanity, they decided, would serve as their proxies. Both groups would try to guide humanity down the path they thought would bring them (humanity) prosperity. The two alien tribes were of the same species, but each held very different beliefs. The first group are a brutal and nasty lot who strongly believe in the theory of "survival of the fittest". This alien tribe became known as "Conservatives". The second group of ETs are peaceful and caring. They believe they are their brother's keepers. These aliens are known as "Progressives".

My Progressive alien friend told me that the Conservative ETs gave their "unearthly inspirations" to humanity in an attempt to persuade them to follow the Conservative path. In America those who have subscribed to these inspirations are known as Republicans. If the Republicans won the Progressive aliens would also lose and the government on the alien home world would be turned over to the Conservatives... as they had agreed when they consented to this proxy war.

However, as my alien friend explained, going down the Republican path would also lead to the destruction of America. This is where I came in... my place in this conflict would be to spread the word of Progressivism. My medium would be the internet, where I was instructed to start a Left-leaning blog.

Then the alien erased the memory of our encounter from my brain, leaving nothing but the seed of an idea behind. It was that seed which became this blog. I had forgotten it until now. That night I felt compelled to go on a moonlit stroll. Suddenly I saw a bright light in the sky. Looking up I saw a saucer-shaped craft hovering above. The craft slowly descended and landed a few yards away.

I did not run in fear. Instead a feeling of extreme calm and peace overcame me. A familiar lanky gray skinned being descended a ramp from the ship. "I sent you a subliminal message via that television program", the Progressive ET informed me via telepathy. "I saw the posting on your blog in which you contemplated quitting".

You must not quit, he said. Or I perceived him to say that, as he did not speak. I only heard his words in my head. "All this time you have spent writing has been in preparation for what is to come. Your writing is not yet strong enough to attract a large following, but soon it will be", the alien assured me. "How much longer will I have to go on writing posts that no one reads?" I asked. The alien told me I must not lose hope, because soon I would attract a enormous readership... although he could not provide a specific time-frame in which that would happen.

I was further informed that the Progressive postings on my blog were only a small part of the plan, but a vital one... which is why I had to continue. The Progressive ET said this time he would not wipe my memory. Dark days are ahead and the knowledge of what I was fighting for (and my importance in the alien plan to save humanity) was needed to keep me going. The alien told me the "dark days" that were coming were endless hearings concerning bogus scandals of the Obama administration.

That I must refute these phony scandals were among the final words the friendly ET imparted. Should I keep my alien encounter a secret? "That would probably be best", the gray-skinned being said, but I could write it up as a work of "fiction" if I so desired. And so I decided to do just that... present the completely true events exactly as they transpired as a story pulled from my imagination.

History professor Ronald H. Fritze says stories about aliens have a "periodic popularity in America", which explains why Ancient Aliens has been on for five seasons and 54 episodes. The viewing public likes it even if it is "noxious sludge", so me writing a post summing up my experiences might attract some people who are into that kind of thing. If some of them read my other writings (on Progressive politics), all the better. Whether or not they believe that I actually encountered extraterrestrials from another planet or not isn't important.

Video: "E.T." is a song by American singer Katy Perry from her third studio album, Teenage Dream (2010).

 swtd-161. mes-1.  Next.

The Moderate Crazies

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 Nooz 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 Libertarian (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 goalposts, 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 be set at 40 percent 39.6 percent 37-38 percent 25 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 Willis 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.

SWTD #98, wDel #9.

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

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...

Infidel753: 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...

TR: [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 Rightwing 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 continuing many of the bush administration 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...

LO: 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...

MHP: 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 initially 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
[1] The Narrative Continues by Bamboo, Bend With The Wind 4/6/2011.
[2] Obama's Liberal Problem by Joshua Green, The Atlantic 12/7/2010.

9/25/2014 Update: The blog "Greedy Capitalist Pig" was a temporary name change. The blog name is actually "Truth Shall Rule", which is the now-shuttered/closed-to-the-public blog of Joe Kelly (AKA "Truth 101", AKA Joe Hagstrom). If you click the link above all you will see is a notice that says the blog is "open to invited readers only".

SWTD #70

Taliban Truthiness

The truth is more important than the facts ~ Frank Lloyd Wright (6/8/1867 to 4/9/1959) an American architect, interior designer, writer and educator, who designed more than 1,000 projects, which resulted in more than 500 completed works. Wright authored 20 books and many articles, and was a popular lecturer in the United States and in Europe. Wright was recognized in 1991 by the American Institute of Architects as "the greatest American architect of all time".

"Independent" blogger Willis "Take No Prisoners" Hart (WTNPH) recently authored a post about Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson for his blog, Contra O'Reilly. The title of the post, "Lying About Your Opponent is Only Bad (Apparently) When Your Opponent Does It", makes the charge that the unabashedly Liberal Grayson is a liar.

The charge, as articulated by Willis in his post, is that "...Congressman Alan Grayson may in fact have committed a Breitbart".

WTNPH goes on...

Willis Hart: I'm referring to that latest over-the-top ad of his against his opponent, Daniel Webster ("Taliban Dan", he refers to him as). In this particular ad, footage is shown in which Mr. Webster is apparently quoting the Bible verse which says that women should in fact submit to their husbands. And, yes, even worse than that, the footage seemingly reveals Mr. Webster of being a proponent of this type of sentiment. Yeah, well, guess what, folks - I've in fact seen the entire clip and Mr. Webster doesn't even remotely subscribe to the sentiment. Grayson and his campaign flunkies flagrantly spliced and diced the tape to flat-out make the fellow look bad. (9/30/2010 AT 6:56pm).

Alan Grayson (DOB 3/13/1958) is an American attorney who is currently serving as a member of the US House of Representatives from Florida's 8th congressional district. He assumed office on 1/2/2009. His Republican opponent in the upcoming election is longtime Florida politician Daniel Webster (DOB 4/27/1949). Webster is a former representative in Florida House of Representatives (1980 to 1998), and member of the Florida Senate (1998 to 2008). He is the longest serving legislator in Florida history (28 years).

In September of 2010 the Grayson campaign began running a 30-second commercial calling Webster Taliban Dan and warning viewers that "Religious fanatics try to take away our freedom, in Afghanistan, in Iran and right here in Central Florida". (information condensed from Wikipedia. Both the ad and the full clip can be viewed here. The ad can be found on YouTube here).

A Congressman With Guts

I've been a fan of Rep. Grayson ever since he made headlines with his suggestion on the House floor that the Republican health care plan is simply to not get sick, but if you do you should die quickly. Republicans were outraged and demanded an apology. But according to Grayson donors agreed with his remarks and, of the $347,000 raised for his reelection campaign during the third quarter, much of it can be attributed to his comments made on 9/29/2009 during the debate preceding passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

A 4/19/2006 Wall Street Journal story, "Attorney Pursues Iraq Contractor Fraud" describes Grayson as "waging a one-man war against contractor fraud in Iraq". According to the article, "Mr. Grayson has filed dozens of lawsuits against Iraq contractors on behalf of corporate whistle-blowers". Grayson, an Iraq war critic, said, "the [bush] administration's botched handling of Iraq opened the door for corrupt contractors to improperly reap fortunes there.

Finding myself in complete agreement with Mr. Grayson's sentiments regarding the Iraq war, the bush administration, and health care, I concluded that Mr. Grayson was one of the good guys. Which is why I defended Rep. Grayson when the Hartster attacked him on 9/20/2010, saying Grayson is, "a fellow who could really use an intervention" and that, "he isn't as off the charts stupid as Bachmann... [but] I really don't think that the elevator is working all that well either".

I pointed out that Mr. Grayson has an impressive background. He completed his coursework at Harvard in three years, graduating in the top 5% of his class (summa cum laude). Four years after that he had earned a degree (with honors) from Harvard Law School, a masters in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a PhD in government (according to Wikipedia).

Willis fired back by arguing that "Ann Coulter's Cornell and University of Michigan Law [degree] is impressive. And so is Laura Ingraham's Dartmouth and University of Virginia Law [degree]". The implication being that these two may have impressive credentials but they're still nitwits - and so is Grayson. He then declared my comment to be "my-way-or-the-highway sentiment from a my-way-or-the-highway liberal".

I'm guessing "my way" is that all Democrats should agree with me or be labeled traitors or DINOs? I don't know. What is apparent is that my admiration of Mr. Grayson seriously ruffled the feathers of the proprietor of Contra O'Reilly. I think what set him off was my response to his assertion that Grayson is "not right in the head". I said, "perhaps that is how someone of high intelligence is perceived by someone of a lesser intelligence?"

But I phrased it in the form of a question, which makes it OK... because I wasn't saying Willis is stupid, just asking if that could, perhaps, be the explanation. I didn't say so on WTNP's blog, but I'll admit it here... Coulter and Ingraham, IMO, do qualify as being "not right in the head", and from a centrist perspective, Alan Grayson probably does appear looney (???). Personally I believe Grayson is speaking truth to power. According to the Wall Street Journal story I previously mentioned, Grayson's "car displayed bumper stickers such as Bush lied, people died".

Taliban To Far?

In any case, this may explain why Willis gleefully tore into Rep. Grayson after the story broke regarding his campaign's use of an "out of context" quote from Mr. Webster in the Taliban Dan TV ad. WTNPH has done this before. Viewing himself a "fair and balanced" moderate Democrat, Mr. Hart feels the need to attack MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (who's reporting he recently referred to as "patently sleazy"). In his mind Keith and Rachel are the "liberal equivalent" of Faux News pundits Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly (or perhaps Laura Ingram for Rachel Maddow, since they are both women).

The point being they are all partisan liars (although Willis has said he has some respect for O'Reilly). So, when I proclaimed myself to be a fan of Mr. Olbermann, Willis responded with a post he called "A Response to W-Dervish's Impassioned Defense of Olbermann". In this post Willis claims it is a "fact that Mr. Olbermann ONLY gives one side to literally every story, doesn't EVER allow conflicting viewpoints on his show, doesn't allow people EVER to defend themselves and constantly refuses to debate people".

Naturally I disagree, although the purpose of this post isn't to defend Mr. Olbermann. The point is Mr. Hart has a history of attacking individuals I respect following a comment by me on his blog in which I reveal my admiration for said person. Although he probably would have attacked Mr. Grayson regardless. Perhaps he saw the piece on "The Daily Show" last night. That is where I first heard about the Taliban Dan ad. From the clips shown it appeared irrefutable that Grayson was guilty of approving a despicable and patently dishonest attack ad. I didn't see how I could defend Mr. Grayson given the facts. Certainly seeing as I had just attacked Andrew Breitbart for essentially the same thing, I can't un-hypocritically defend Grayson's ad, can I?

Obviously Grayson believes the way to keep his set in Florida's historically Republican 8th congressional district is through the use of audacious rhetoric that will garner national attention and motivate voters who agree with him to donate to his campaign and get out and vote for him. The "Taliban Dan" ad is indubitably an extension of that strategy.

There is no denying that it has attracted a lot of attention. It has worked so far, so this could be a good strategy. Certainly better than tacking to the Right in order to appease his voters. We all witnessed how John McCain flip flopped (in regards to positions he once held) in order to defeat primary challenger J.D. Hayworth.

I would have been quite disappointed if Grayson had gone that route in an attempt to retain his House seat. Even though the Tea Baggers apparently fell for McCain's reversals, I doubt Grayson could have fooled the voters into believing he isn't a "far left" Liberal. However, even though I admire him for these reasons, if Mr. Grayson is guilty of "pulling a Breitbart" certainly I must repudiate him?

OK, I thought... this looks bad. Maybe he already apologized? Nope. Grayson, when asked about an apology, said "of course not". Because he doesn't believe the ad "distorted Webster's views toward women". According to Grayson "People can argue in context, out of context forever, but the substance of the ad is demonstratively true".

Say what?

The Supposed Facts Obscuring the Genuine Truth

The St. Petersburg Times says "The commercial lifts a partial quote from a comment Webster made in 2007 in a seminar put on by the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP), in which he urges listeners to have a Bible verse that they associate with their spouses". In the full video Webster says "not the one that says wives submit yourselves to your husbands", although, Webster adds, "she can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it".

In the unedited video Webster explains "[wives should submit to their husbands] - that's in the Bible, but pick the ones (prayers) you're supposed to do". After Grayson's spot aired Webster appeared on Fox News to clarify the issue. Webster said, "I was talking about the idea of praying for your wife, but don't pray to her the verses that say submit to me because THAT'S HER RESPONSIBILITY.

You as a man, as a father, and as a husband have responsibility. So I was saying you focus on your responsibility, not on hers" (YouTube link).

I think that definitely does clarify the issue. Webster believes a wife should submit to her husband. I don't know how much more proof anyone could possibly need beyond a person's own words. Willis' assertion that "Mr. Webster doesn't even remotely subscribe to the sentiment" is incorrect.

Webster's Fundamentalist Church

According to Politifact (A fact checking website operated by the St. Petersburg Times) "Grayson spokesman Sam Drzymala... describes [the IBLP] as a right-wing cult".

Politifact also reports that "Some of [the IBLP's] specific teachings are controversial. Among them, the Institute teaches that a mother violates Scripture when she works outside the home, that married couples are to abstain from sex 40 days after the birth of a son, 80 days after the birth of a daughter & the evening prior to worship, and that people should avoid rock and even contemporary Christian music because it can be addictive".

Furthermore, the IBLP believes "the man provides servant leadership and the woman responds with reverent submission", "a foolish wife will take matters into her own hands", "a wife is to stay beautiful for her husband", and "resistance or indifference to your husband's need for physical intimacy is the unspoken crushing of his spirit".

Politifact rates the Taliban Dan ad FALSE, however, the contributing editor of the Daily Kos, Jed Lewison, responds by observing "when those who are defending you nonetheless include a detailed accounting of your 30-year membership in a cultish group of religious extremists with radical views on the relationship between men and women, then you are way, way outside the mainstream".

Mr. Lewison further observes that the IBLP founder, Bill Gothard, believes that a wife, "has to realize that God accomplishes his ultimate will through the decisions of the husband, even when the husband is wrong", and "Gothard even advises a wife whose husband chastises her to say, God, thank you for this beating".

So, should we "reject Grayson's new ad as a Shirely Sherrod-style smear"? Mr. Lewison's conclusion is, "Webster's own words - from the speech cited in the ad - support the claim [that wives should submit to their husbands]".

The reporting by the MSM and The Daily Show had convinced me that Mr. Grayson was guilty of producing a Breitbart-style deceptively edited video. But after completing my investigation I was surprised to find myself in agreement with Rep. Grayson. The religious organization Webster belongs to clearly DOES believe wives should submit to their husbands. The founder of the institute has said as much, and Webster agrees with him, stating "I enjoy the advice he's given... I think it's been a major part of my life. I'm not ashamed of that. What he has said I believe to be the truth".

The Liberal Option

The consensus at Contra O'Reilly appears to be that Grayson is an asshole. I say he's warning the voters that his opponent is a religious fanatic. I stand by Mr. Grayson and, if I were a resident of the district, would have no problems what-so-ever voting for him. In fact, I would be overjoyed to do so. Where I live (Tennessee's 8th Congressional district) I have the "choice" of voting for Stephen Fincher (the Republican) or Roy Herron (the "Democrat"). There is also an Independent and Tea Party Candidate (although he dropped out).

A choice between three conservatives is a lesser of two evils situation. Herron supports renegotiating NAFTA, so that is a point in his favor - although he opposes a state income tax, thinks the health care bill was "too big", received an A+ from the NRA, believes we need to expand border security and is endorsed by the Conservative blue dogs.

If only I had the opportunity to vote for a true Liberal like Grayson! There would be a big smile on my face as I skipped into my designated polling place while humming "Oh Happy Day".

Ill-Advised, But Not "Out of Context"

That said, I believe using video clip was a mistake, because in the ad it does APPEAR that Webster was taken out of context. Did it occur to no one in the campaign that they would be nailed for that reason? Also, Webster is a radical Christian fanatic, which is bad enough. Comparing him to the Taliban was unnecessary hyperbole. It may have made a great attack ad, but after the Shirley Sherrod fiasco they should have known the full video would come out.

Even though in the Shirley Sherrod case the video WAS deceptively edited, and in this case the video edit was simply a bad idea - people generally don't get subtly. All the public heard was that Webster said husbands should NOT pray that their wives submit. They missed the part where he said it was because the wife should.

Usually I agree with Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. I have noticed, however, their need to (at least) occasionally criticize the Left. Usually they are right when they do so, but this time they got it wrong. The Huffington Post also got it wrong. Post author Richard Herbert actually repeats the false allegation that the Grayson campaign was "caught editing a video clip to make Webster appear to say the opposite of what he really said".

FactCheck gets it wrong too, claiming Grayson is "using edited video to make his rival appear to be saying the opposite of what he really said".

But the ad WAS a spectacular backfire, as the Grayson campaign should have been able to predict it would be. That is the only thing I'm going to criticize Mr. Grayson for. Tom Gaitens, Florida director of the billionaire-funded Tea Party astroturfers FreedomWorks asserts, "it's [Grayson's] character to say foolish things, and he doesn't handle stress well. He'll see this poll and get more desperate".

Gaitens predicts a 10-point victory for Webster. Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service says, "they have the potential to be real spoilers in this race and could allow Grayson to squeak through". He's referring to the three other competitors running for the Florida seat - Tea Partier Peg Dunmire, Independent George L. Metcalfe, and write-in qualifier Florida Whig Party candidate Steven J. Gerritzen (for a grand total of FIVE candidates).

Religious Nut Wins Election?

I really hope this ill-advised ad does not cost Grayson the election. Because it would be a travesty if a Taliban-lite religious nut like Daniel Webster were to win the Florida 8th district election. An article on (John Birch Society owned) The New American website quotes Grayson campaign manager Susannah Randolph as saying, "As soon as they realize Webster sponsored a bill to outlaw divorce, opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest, and voted for cuts in funding to domestic violence shelters, they'll see he's incredibly anti-women".

Article author Raven Clabough responds by claiming Randolph's statement is "[a sad attempt] to justify the advertisement by refocusing attention on Webster's record of social conservatism". I wouldn't call labeling all those horribly anti-women's rights positions "social conservatism" a rebuttal or a denial, so I presume they're all true.

The issues page on Daniel Webster's official campaign website states, under "sanctity of life", "as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life is our first right. Daniel Webster would support legislation that the Constitutional protections of life and liberty extend to the unborn". Granting Constitutional rights to zygotes and blastocysts would certainly outlaw abortion in ALL cases.

Since it is illegal to kill someone to save another's life, under Webster's proposed legislation there wouldn't even be an exception if the mother's death were likely. I think reasonable people on both sides of the abortion debate do agree this position is extreme and outside the norm.

The legislation Webster sponsored (in 1990) to "outlaw divorce" was Florida House Bill 1585, which would have created a voluntary "covenant marriage". Under the proposed legislation (which was never voted on) "men and women would have the option on their application for a marriage license to elect a covenant marriage. Under terms of the agreement, the [couple] would have to have their parents' permission and attend premarital counseling by a member of the clergy or a marriage counselor before proceeding.

As part of their marriage license, the [couple] would sign notarized documents declaring their intention to not seek a divorce for any reason except adultery. Physical or sexual abuse is not listed as grounds for divorce. Politifact (the source of the proceeding information) says the Grayson campaign assertion that this bill would have outlawed divorce is "half true".

I don't know for certain if Webster has ever voted for "cuts in funding to domestic violence shelters". I couldn't find any link which was not just the Susannah Randolph quote. However, before you dismiss it, take this into consideration: the quote was repeated multiple times on Conservative websites - and not once was it disputed. Most of the time it was ignored and the Conservative author immediately jumped to the conclusion that Grayson was lying because the clip was "out of context".

On only one website where I found the quote did the Conservative author respond. That was "The New American", where Raven Clabough calls cuts in funding to domestic violence shelters "social conservatism". If you can provide me with a link that says this is a lie please share - otherwise I will conclude that is it most likely true.

I think it is pretty clear (to me, at least) that the clip is not "out of context". Webster said husbands shouldn't say a prayer asking God to make their wives submissive - not that the wives shouldn't be submissive anyway. In fact, he said it was their responsibility! Webster says "it's in the Bible". It's also in the full video. Watch it yourself and you tell me how anyone could reach the conclusion that "Webster doesn't even remotely subscribe to the sentiment".

His church preaches it, he said it. In any case, whether or not likening Dan Webster religious views to those of the Taliban is valid, I believe the more important truth is Webster is a nut with views about marriage and women's rights that sane people find offensive.

Image: Democrat Alan Grayson and his Republican Opponent Daniel Webster.

See also: Grayson Knocks Taliban Dan Webster For Supporting Covenant Marriage by Brian Beutler, Talking Points Memo 8/23/2010

SWTD #53, wDel #1

Hannity Zero

Now there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them ~ George W. Bush (b. 7/6/1946) 43rd President of the United States (1/20/2001 to 1/20/2009) revising history, and warning others not to call him on HIS revisions.

The debate is over whether we want the government to serve the needs of the bulk of the population or just the purposes of the rich and powerful. Progressives must stop helping the Right hide its real agenda ~ Dean Baker (b. 7/13/1958) American macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, referring to the Left's acceptance of the legitimacy of the Right's belief in the "free market".

Hannity Assists Citizens United In Financial Sector Crisis History Rewrite

The Conservative spin machine went into overdrive following the economic crisis and bailout. It was obvious to (almost) everyone that deregulation, as championed by Republicans and Conservative Democrats, was what allowed the thieves on Wall Street to rob us blind. But the Republicans were determined to place the blame elsewhere. One of the ways the "popular notion" that deregulation was the culprit was countered was with a faux documentary titled "Generation Zero". According to Sean Hannity, the fact that "massive deregulation caused the economic downturn and, as liberals say, capitalism failed" is completey refuted by this film.

On 2/23/2010 Hannity invited the film's producer, David Bossie of Citizens United Productions, onto the show. He called it "A Hannity Special", and touted it as an "exclusive first look".

David Bossie, who currently serves as President AND Chairman of the conservative non-profit organization, has a long history of attacking Democrats by manipulating the facts to fit his narrative. During the Whitewater Investigation Bossie attempted to use "selectively edited transcripts" to smear President Clinton. Bossie was fired from his investigative position by Newt Gingrich, who described the episode as embarrassing. (The transcripts were culled from "tapes that were routinely recorded last year while Hubbell, Clinton's first associate attorney general, was serving a federal prison term for defrauding his Little Rock law firm").

A 4/25/2008 CBS News story reported that Mr. Bossie's GOP Dirty Tricks Dupe Media. The dirty trick was to produce political attack ads containing dubious information, then, instead of paying to air these ads, they would post them on Republican websites or YouTube. Eventually, after receiving enough exposure, the videos would be picked up by the news media and covered as if they were actual stories. The CBS News article points out that the news media "[running] the ad over and over is tantamount to giving free air time to smear machines...".

During the 2008 Democratic primaries Bossie attempted to circumvent campaign finance laws by airing an "advertisement" for "Hillary: The Movie", even though the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as "McCain-Feingold") specifically prohibits the airing of "broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election". Citizens United argued that their obvious hit piece, which included clips of all the most incendiary attacks against Mrs. Clinton, was not a political ad. It was a advertisement for their "documentary", and so was not subject to McCain-Feingold. Instead of ruling against Citizens United due to their blatant violation of the law, the ultra-right leaning activist Supreme Court struck down (a portion of) McCain-Feingold as "Unconstitutional", overturning 100 years of settled case law.

With "Generation Zero" Bossie continues the Conservative propaganda campaign. Utilizing all his old dirty tricks, he, along with writer/director Stephen K. Bannon, attempt to shift the blame from the Conservative economic philosophies which unquestioningly caused the financial sector crisis to "a frightening alliance between the Democratic Party and big business". When Hannity claims that banks and insurance companies failing is a "myth", Bossie responds, saying "Certainly. It's hubris and greed at the same time that it's the cultural and social breakdown from the '60s that is really taken that 30, 40 years that led up to September 18th crisis".

According to the filmmakers it is the baby boomers who we should be blaming. Specifically, the Democratic Baby Boomers, although, in my reading of the Hannity Special transcript, I see no facts presented on which that conclusion could possibly be based. It was Liberal greed and hubris that lead to the economic collapse, and not Republican greed or hubris? Nevermind that Libertarianism holds that it is personally responsible to act in your own self-interest, and according to (Libertarian and Con hero) Ayn Rand it's a virtue. Does Bossie think that Conservative greed is good and Liberal greed is bad?

In describing the "sociopathy that is at the heart of the far-right worldview", author Tim Wise, in his Daily Kos diary explains that the Conservative "worldview holds, quite simply, that doing for others is contemptible; that doing for self is the purpose of human life; that altruism and service are somehow pathologies pushed by collectivists and should be subordinated to selfishness and greed".

And everyone knows that it is the Republican Party which is in the pockets of big business. Hannity himself points this out, in an obvious setup for Bossie, who counters by claiming that, while that WAS true, "the Democratic Party has truly taken over that position of power on Wall Street". What's going on here is that Bossie is twisting the facts, as he is prone to do. Wall Street did make significant contributions to Barack Obama's campaign, but that was because they saw how badly bush had screwed the economy. Wall Street shifting more of their contributions to the party they believe is going to win the election does not an "alliance" make. If they had thought the Republicans were going to win - their contributions would have gone to the GOP.

Republicans have been in the pocket of big business for decades. It is why they've been defending BP and referring to President Obama negotiating with Tony Hayward for a $20 billion victim's compensation escrow account as a "shakedown". It is why they objected to, and forced the removal from the financial reform bill of a provision designed to set up a $50 billion fund allowing the industry to pay for the dissolution of insolvent banks (instead of the taxpayer). Despite the fact that this fund would ensure the exact opposite, Republicans lied and said the reason for their objection is that the fund would "institutionalize bailouts".

As for the Wall Street's alliance with Democrats? It appears as though they feel the Democrats have not "put out" to their satisfaction. A 2/7/2010 New York Times story says, "in a message to Democrats, Wall Street sends cash to GOP" as part of their "campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations". According to the article, "Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's buyer's remorse with the Democrats".

Who Needs Regulation When We Have Personal Responsibility?

Regarding Hannity's claim that Republican deregulation did NOT lead directly to the economic downturn - this ridiculous claim proves that the people behind (and promoting) this propaganda film are complete idiots. Because, even if selfish risk taking Liberals ARE who we should hold responsible, wouldn't regulation have been the best method by which to stop them? Bossie suggests that those responsible lack personal responsibility. Presumably, the solution, in his mind, would be more "personal responsibility".

Wikipedia states that "moral hazard occurs when a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk". The Republican solution is to get rid of the moral hazard problem by refusing to engage in bailouts. Which leads to increased personal responsibility, less overly risky behavior, and a self-regulating free market. Because people realize that they, instead of the taxpayer, are on the hook if anything goes wrong.

The primary flaw in this theory is that it does not take into account greed coupled with human stupidity. The character Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's Wall Street acted in a way that he thought was in his own self interest, and ended up in prison. Greed, aside from being a negative character trait for many other reasons, is most definitely not good (regardless of what Ayn Rand thought, or Conservative ideology holds) because it often causes people to only consider the short-term benefit and ignore any possible future risk.

Certainly BP did not act in a personally responsible way. Their risky corner cutting netted them an increase in short term profits but ended up causing the greatest ecological disaster in US history. Since the explosion that sank the Deepwater Horizon BP's stock has lost half it's value - and market analysts continue to speculate as to whether the company will survive.

Personally I am sick of hearing this idiotic meme that "personal responsibility" is a legitimate alternative to sensible regulation. We're supposed to cross our fingers and hope that everyone behaves themselves, because it is in their own best interest to do so? It is total insanity. Bernie Madoff's actions were hugely personally irresponsible. And Bernie Madoff was not an aberration. According to a 10/2/2009 USA Today article, "ponzi schemes are the most prevalent type of investor fraud". This, despite the fact that ponzi schemes are always eventually uncovered. The perpetrators go to prison, and the victims are left to litigate for the possible return of a portion of what they lost. Certainly ponzi schemers don't expect to be bailed out if (or when) their scams are uncovered. So, shouldn't "personal responsibility" have stopped them? That IS the Con theory, is it not?

I think that those in the financial sector making money hand over fist during the lead up to the meltdown and bailout cared as much about the possibility that everything may eventually come crashing down about as much as those arrested for running ponzi schemes. Yes, for some it may have been something they thought about, but I seriously doubt that an expectation of no bailouts would have prevented this crash. The only thing that could have prevented it was regulations enforced by competent government employees.

Free Market Fundamentalism Or Fakery?

And don't forget that it was Con hero Ronald Reagan who set up the moral hazard dilemma by deregulating the S&Ls, causing his successor to have to bail them out when they came crashing down (thanks, in part, to his sons Jeb and Neil). Economist Paul Krugman, in a 5/31/2009 article titled "Reagan Did It" points out that "Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending - restrictions that... limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down".

Further deregulation shepherded through Congress by former Republican Congressman and McCain Campaign financial advisor Phil Gramm blew away the remaining FDR era protections.

There is a reason the Cons keep pushing the laissez faire fairy tale of deregulation and personal responsibility leading to a self-regulating free market, and it isn't because they actually believe in this nonsense. The real reason they continue to insist that economic liberalization is the pathway to nirvana is that they want to turn our economy over to the wealthy elites. They believe that our economic system should not exist for the benefit of everyone, but only serve to make the rich richer. It is about time people wise up and realize that, whatever position the Republican part takes, it is always because that position will best serve the interests of the wealthy and corporations.

Unfortunately a lot of people have been fooled by the Con's insincere rhetoric concerning their "opposition" to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. Even though a Republican president signed the bill into law, they were actually against it. Baloney. They knew that the Democrats, being the responsible party, would make sure the bailout went though. Because a collapse of the financial sector would have been extremely bad for the country.

The bailout, claims economist Paul Krugman, saved us from a second great depression by "averting the worst". And, it should be noted, that the Republican solution of eliminating the moral hazard problem (the one that Reagan set up) by allowing the financial sector to fail and thus virtually guaranteeing a depression - would only work (if it did) the next time. This time we would have suffered the dire consequences. In essence the Republicans were "demanding that the government stop standing in the way of a possible depression".

But it isn't as if they would have actually let this happen. Economist Dean Baker points to irrefutable proof that the Republicans are faking their allegiance to the free market with an essay titled "Free Market Fundamentalism Is an Invention of Progressives". It seems that the House Republicans recently put forward legislation to "discourage" strategic defaults.

Even though it many states non-recourse loans - which allow you to discontinue payment after turning your property over to the bank - are completely legal. Obviously the goal of the Republicans was to protect the banks from the terms of their own contracts. So much for letting the free market do it's thing.

Bottom line when it comes to "Generation Zero" or any instance of a Republican politician, pundit, or other insider lecture regarding the "free market" - is to not take anything they say at face value. Any argument put forward is most likely a deception or twist of the truth designed to help out their wealthy constituency while pulling the wool over the eyes of the average voter - and convince them that they should vote Republican even though it isn't in their best interest to do so.

The goal of "Generation Zero" is just that. Defend the wealthy elites and argue that they should be left to run our economy as they see fit (with no oversight), shift blame to the Democrats, and make money telling deluded voters what they want to hear.

Notes, Clarifications, & Additional Points
[1] Thanks to Sue, who brought this "documentary" to my attention with a post on her blog. A Conservative calling himself "Silverfiddle" said, "It's all true, and verifiably so. Of course, you can argue with his conclusions, but he uses facts to make his case". Seeing as the "documentary" is a huge lie I felt obligated to respond.
[2] Regarding Wall Street's "alliance" with Democrats - I stand by what I wrote above, even though the financial sector IS receiving favors in return for their contributions to Democrats (The Goldman Sachs-Obama Administration association is particularly troublesome). The financial regulation that is about to pass Congress has been watered down in an effort to gain a few Republican votes - but it wasn't strong enough to begin with. I still would not characterize this as an "alliance", but a very unfortunate reality of the political system as it is. The real alliance was and still is between Wall Street and the Republican Party.
[3] In the GWB quote at the top of this post ex-president doofus was referring to his illegal invasion of Iraq and the fact that Saddam Hussein posed zero threat to the US, although I think it can very easily be applied (ironically) to his entire presidency.
[4] In regards to the financial sector bailout, you may have surmised that I am a fan. You would be wrong. While acknowledging that the government did need to take action, and that the action they took did work (to a certain degree), I disagree with exactly how they went about it. (See "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: Alternate Proposals for more information).

Further Reading
[1] Bernie Madoff, Free at Last: In prison he doesn't have to hide his lack of conscience. In fact, he's a hero for it. By Steve Fishman, New York Magazine 6/6/2010.
[2] Profiling CEOs and Their Sociopathic Paychecks by Thom Hartmann, The Huffington Post 7/27/2009.

SWTD #47

Abolishing The Fourth of July Holiday

That's the ultimate pornography ... There's nothing more pornographic than glorifying war ~ Tom Clancy, (b. 4/12/1947) an American author, best known for his technically detailed espionage, military science and techno thriller storylines set during and in the aftermath of the Cold War.

I'm a far Left Liberal, and thus a pacifist (and an atheist, although that has nothing with the point I am about to make). The Fourth of July holiday glorifies war, and should be abolished. The genius Liberal Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore agrees, and being a far-left Liberal and blind partisan, I agree with whatever Michael Moore says.

Initially I learned of Mr. Moore's campaign to end the holiday during a Starz free preview weekend, during which an incisive docudrama titled "An American Carol" aired. The film starred Kevin Farley (Chris Farley's younger brother) as Michael Moore, although for some reason they changed his name in the film to "Michael Malone".

In addition to being a proponent for the abolishment of this holiday because it glorifies war, I also a support getting rid of the implements of war. According to what I've heard, President Obama may institute the U.N. gun ban in America, which would dissolve our Bill Of Rights and begin confiscation of all US civilian guns. It's a Liberal wet dream come true!

Hopefully an executive order will be issued soon. (I have never heard of this "U.N. gun ban", but it sounds awesome! Also, seeing as the "the right to bear arms" is only one of ten amendments that make up the Bill Of Rights, I'm not sure how a getting a gun ban dissolves them all... I'm just telling you what I heard. Check the link for further details).

Actually, I'm yanking your chain. "An American Carol" is a parody, albeit not a good one. It is a horrible film that portrays a man I admire as an America-hating terrorist-appeasing fool. Unbelievably I watched this terrible movie to the very end, thinking that it might, perhaps, be (unintentionally) funny in its extreme use of every Left-wing stereotype. By the time I realized what a piece of unredeemable crap it was, I was more than half way though.

So I decided that I might as well finish watching. As a fan of previous Zucker/Nielsen outings (notably "Airplane!"), I was extremely disappointed that either had chosen to associate themselves with this "jaw-droppingly awful" Con propaganda "film". It is indeed "about as not-funny as a comedy can get" (review by Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer). The film lost approximately 13 million dollars.

One thing the screenwriters got unintentionally right is the "stereotypical" Conservative. Intensely patriotic with zero tolerance for any criticisms of American foreign policy, unquestioning reverence for the military which includes equating supporting war with supporting our soldiers, the theft and history revisionist conversion of Democratic icons like JFK, appropriation of the Founding Fathers (George Washington in this case), intolerance and hatred for minorities (Muslims, African Americans and Homosexuals) - all the Conservative stereotypes are "parodied" in this film. But this movie is meant to parody Liberals - the Con stereotypes in the film aren't parodies but how they actually see themselves!

Another review that described the movie as "singularly inept and downright unfunny" elicited the following response (the website allowed reader comments) from a reviewer of the review: The reviewer is an idiot, reacting to his Hollywood leftist radical bosses. I hope you saw the movie and laughed as hard as I did at seeing Michael Moore get his well-deserved, long overdue comeuppance. It must be hitting the target, since some movie theaters are under reporting attendance numbers, and some even changed the rating (in their ads) from PG to R to discourage attendance! Big brother is alive and well in Hollywood! (Review: An American Carol by William Goss, Cinematical 10/4/2008. Reader comment #5 by "john" 10/08/2008)

This comment exemplifies the delusional paranoia of your typical Con. Information which does not reinforce what they already believe is dismissed as a Liberal conspiracy designed to conceal "the truth".

The following two observations extracted from an "Ain't it Cool News" review also sum up the Con mentality fairly well...

"It's a bunch of rich and arrogant people making fun of free speech, dissenting opinions, minorities and being middle class", and "[The director] equates criticism of America, the desire to see the country improve or discuss its mistakes, as heresy. [the film] takes complex issues that involve shades of gray and distills them into black and white, right wing and wrong. You watch this film and seriously wonder about the filmmaker's IQ" (We've Got Another Review Of "An American Carol", And This One's Gonna Make Dr. Hfhurrhurr Cry! by "Moriarty" 9/30/2008).

Now that I think about it, instead of wondering about David Zucker's IQ, I'm wondering if he may be suffering from brain damage. According to Wikipedia Zucker was "once a longtime liberal Democrat" who has completely flipped and now considers himself a Conservative Republican. This reminds me of Con hero Ronald Reagan. Reagan's Wikipedia page states that he "began as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies". Then something (brain damage?) warped his mind, and he switched to the Republican Party.

Anyway, the reason I'm bringing up an (almost) 2 year old movie is because I think this film illustrates quite clearly that not all is right with the Conservative brain. A Left-wing parody similar to "An American Carol" wouldn't work, because they'd view it as an accurate depiction of the ideal Conservative. We rebut their positions using the truth, while their counter-arguments consist mainly of lies. Lies that many of them are deluded into believing are true. Cons have suggested that progressivism is a mental illness or a disease (Glenn Beck), but only because our side said it first. It's the "uh-uh you are!" defense typical of a young child.

Read the quote below by Reagan and then explain to me what the hell happened to this once sane individual. Maybe mental illness is the cause, maybe not. Whatever it was, the inanity of "An American Carol" shows that the same thing happened to David Zucker. An article by Ronald Bailey titled, "Pathologizing Conservatism", concludes with the claim that, "academic researchers have surely amassed enough evidence of psychopathology that conservatism can listed in the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders".

(Strangely enough, this article is from the "Reason" website. "Reason" is a Libertarian publication. I've posted regarding my thoughts on Libertarianism before, so if you've read my blog in the past you know I'm no fan. Libertarianism is as loony as Conservatism, or possibly even more so. For that reason I debated as to whether or not I should cite this article, but perhaps it takes one nut to recognize another? Who knows. Read the article and judge for yourself - the claims, research, and conclusions sound solid to me).

Following are some quotes from Washington and Kennedy that prove their appropriation by the Right is outrageous historical revisionism at it's worst. BTW, I do not support abolishing the 4th of July, which a celebration of the birth of our nation, not a holiday glorifying war.

[the Republicans promised] ...a real increase in income for everybody. But what actually happened? The profits of corporations have doubled, while workers' wages have increased by only one-quarter. In other words, profits have gone up four times as much as wages ... the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which reported a net profit of $210 million after taxes for the first half of 1948; an increase of 70% in one year. ...high prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits. ... Tax-reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher-income brackets alone ~ Ronald Reagan (2/6/1911 to 6/5/2004) speaking against the Republican controlled 80th United States Congress (nicknamed the "do nothing Congress") and in favor of the re-electing the 33rd President of the United States, Democrat Harry Truman (Reagan Campaigns for Truman in 1948: Complete Transcript, and YouTube video).

As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality ~ George Washington, (2/22/1732 to 12/14/1799) 1st president of the United States (4/30/1789 to 3/4/1797).

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal" ~ John F. Kennedy, (5/29/1917 to 11/22/1963) 35th president of the United States (1/20/1961 to 11/22/1963) accepting the New York Liberal Party nomination (10/14/1960).

SWTD #45

Conservatives Pushing For BP Bailout

...I think it's part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it's always got to be somebody's fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen ~ Rand Paul, referring to BP's underwater Gulf of Mexico oil geyser on ABC's Good Morning America (5/21/2010).

As I've alluded to in previous posts, I am no fan of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or Libertarians. Objectifiers of greed and selfishness, is more like it. Let us pray that Kentuckian voters send this fool packing. The record clearly shows that Randal Paul (his actual name) was dead wrong to suggest that this was an accident.

Gulf Oil Disaster Not An Accident

According to an oil industry whistleblower, "BP had been aware for years that tests of blowout prevention devices were being falsified". During Congressional hearings it was revealed that the blowout preventer attached to the well that the Deepwater Horizon was in the final stages of completing, "had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system and had failed a negative pressure test just hours before the April 20 explosion".

A recent ProPublica investigation revealed that "Years of Internal BP Probes Warned That Neglect Could Lead to Accidents", and that BP had "systemically ignored its own safety policies across its North American operations".

Finally, let's not forget that the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward recently admitted, "We did not have the tools you would want in your toolkit". Which, even though he probably did not realize it at the time, is an admission that BP lied when it stated, in their drilling application to the Minerals Management Service, it could "handle a spill involving as much as 12.6 million gallons of oil per day, a number 60 times higher than its current estimate of the ongoing Gulf disaster".

Criminal Negligence

Legally, when you cut this many corners in complete disregard for even your own safety protocols, you can no longer claim that the resulting disaster is an "accident". This is, without a doubt, a brazen case of criminal negligence. (For the record, BP has yet to be convicted of criminal negligence in the case of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, although AG Eric Holder is investigating).

So when Mr. Paul feigned outrage at Obama administration's declaration to keep its "boot heel on the throat of BP", saying, "I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business", I do not believe he was being sincere. This reminds me of Sarah Palin praising the "pro-America" parts of the country during the Presidential campaign. Obviously the "pro-American" parts of the country are were the majority of the voters fall for Conservative chicanery and put the interests of the wealthy and corporations above their own by electing Republicans.

Of course, to a Conservative, saying anything in support of the Average Joe and against the wealthy and corporations would be grounds for being accused of "un-American activities". Strike that, DOING anything in support of the average Joe. Conservatives routinely lie about their policies being good for everyone.

For instance, on the oil spill, Randal Paul also said that, "he had heard nothing from BP indicating it wouldn't pay for the spill". This is a completely ridiculous thing for Mr. Paul to say. Under President Doofus our government routinely let oil companies off the hook in regards to paying for the accidents their reckless disregard for safety caused. (In fact, "Bush's DOJ Killed a Criminal Probe Into BP That Threatened to Net Top Officials".)

Final Price For Disaster Could Be Beyond Astronomical

Apparently BP doesn't even intend on paying for all the immediate costs of the cleanup, which, according to a current estimate will total approximately 12.5 billion. If they were, why would Tony Hayward, in an attempt to reassure the financial industry, say "BP can escape this disaster paying no more than $3 billion in costs and damages"?

But 12.5 Billion for the clean up is just an initial estimate - the final cost may be several hundred billion. Although, as far as economic damages go, Congress capped those at 75 million after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

In regards to the issue of "liability caps", Senator Patrick Leahy has stated, "It reduce[s] the consequences of [any] misconduct to a discounted cost of doing business. That's almost like saying, 'We're giving you a green light to do whatever you want to do'. I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised that... oil companies cut corners and compromised safety".

The liability cap, however, only applies to economic damages. There is no cap so far as the cleanup costs. There is also no cap on fines that may be imposed. An EPA imposed per-barrel "spilled" fine under the Clean Water Act could amount to as much as $10.7 billion (estimated by Rachel Maddow on her 6/1/2010 broadcast). Rachel went on to say, "That would be $10.7 billion on top of all of the other cleanup costs, all of the economic injury claims from local businessmen, all of the liability to states for tourism lost and whatever criminal charges the Justice Department turns up".

Criminal charges will most certainly result in criminal fines, and BP has a long history of convictions. In 2005 BP was cited for "willful negligence" and paid two of the largest fines in OSHA history. Including these two citations, BP's fines since 2005 total more than $730 million. In regards to this latest disaster, one expert says the case against BP is a "slam dunk".

Also, if the criminal proceedings determine that BP was "grossly negligent or... engaged in willful misconduct or conduct in violation of federal regulations", the $75 million economic liability cap is nullified. So, despite their horrendous track record, Randal Paul thinks we should take BP at their word. Like when we trusted BP employees to fill out their own inspection reports honestly and accurately.

There is also the issue of the 18.75% royality BP agreed to pay when they signed the lease. Although there is a question regarding whether or not this royalty should be applied to the oil "recovered", or all the oil removed from the ground. A 6/4/2010 Politico story reports that the Democratic Representative from West Virginia, Nick Rahall says that "the Minerals Management Service, the agency that oversees offshore drilling, has been unclear whether BP would be required to pay royalties on any oil captured from the Deepwater Horizon spill".

Why only assess royalties on the captured oil? I believe BP should pay royalties on ALL the oil that escapes from the well, whether they capture it or it escapes into the gulf - plus the per-barrel fine.

Finally, NOLA.com reports that the White House has suggested that BP reimburse "offshore oil rig workers who lose wages as a result of the administration's moratorium on deep water oil and gas exploration". This would cost BP an additional $150 million to $300 million a month.

Incredibly Unlikely That BP Will Pay "Every Cent"

I would have guessed that a Libertarian would believe in the old axiom, "trust must be earned". BP has clearly not earned our trust. That, plus the rumor I've heard is that BP may file for bankruptcy protection to avoid paying. An ABC news story states that "respected oil industry analyst Matt Simmons told Fortune Magazine that a bankruptcy filing was likely within a month". According to Mr. Simmons, "They're going to run out of cash from lawsuits, cleanup and other expenses", because "there isn't enough money in the world to clean up the Gulf of Mexico".

By the way, Wikpedia, in discussing "bankruptcy" says that "The principal focus of modern insolvency legislation and business debt restructuring practices no longer rests on the elimination of insolvent entities but on the remodeling of the financial and organizational structure of debtors experiencing financial distress so as to permit the rehabilitation and continuation of their business". In other words bankruptcy would not put BP out of business, leaving it's creditors to divvy up it's assets.

Also according to Wikipedia, "a strategic bankruptcy may occur when an otherwise solvent company makes use of the bankruptcy laws for some specific business purpose" In this case the "specific business purpose" would be to discharge it's obligations to pay a majority of the Gulf oil spill bill.

During a 6/11/2010 interview, Louisiana State Treasurer John Kennedy conjectured, "I know BP said they won't go into bankruptcy. I hope they're telling the truth. They weren't truthful about the extent of the spill". He is urging Governor Bobby Jindal to "devise a plan to deal with the oil spill cleanup and response efforts in the event of a BP bankruptcy".

It is also possible that BP may be deemed "to big to fail" and rescued by an American and/or British bailout. Apparently a lot of British pensioners hold shares of BP, and recent suggestions that BP delay or cancel it's dividend payment have raised the ire of the British politicians who represent them. A Labour Party member by the name of Tom Watson cried foul, stating that, "you attack the dividend and you are attacking millions of British pensioners".

Finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue threw his support behind a taxpayer funded BP bailout, declaring, "...everybody is going to contribute to this clean up. We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies". Obviously money from "the government" is taxpayer money. He also stated his opposition to Senate efforts to raise the cap on economic damages, whining, "It is generally not the practice of this country to change the laws after the game".

And, as a 6/10/2010 Huffington Post article points out, House Minority Leader John Boehner agrees! This is no surprise since the Chamber is an anti-middle class pro-big business organization that solely represents the interests of the wealthy and, in furtherance of that goal, primarily funds Republicans.

Exxon Mobil Did Not Pay "Every Cent" For Valdez Alaska Spill, Nor Were All The Injured Parties "Made Whole"

I believe that what this all indicates, beyond any doubt, is that this was not an accident - and that BP isn't going to pay the full cost of the environmental and economic disaster their reckless greed caused. Even so, at this point, my conclusions are simply speculation. However, what we do know for sure is that Exxon did not pay the full cost of their 1989 spill, instead they fought the punitive damage award levied against them for 20 years.

Damages were eventually reduced from 5 Billion to paltry 500 million by the Right-leaning Supreme Court.

A 2/2/2009 CBS News story reminds, "Back in 1989, Exxon executives promised to take care of everyone affected by the spill". Exxon's manager of Alaska operations promised, "You have my word we will make you whole again". I seriously doubt that the any of the 32,000 original plaintiffs in the Exxon lawsuit feel they have been "made whole" - those that are still alive, that is. "At least 6,000 of the original plaintiffs died" during the 20 years Exxon battled the original judgment in court.

Tony Hayward has made similar statements claiming BP will "stand with Gulf Coast residents until they are made whole". If that is the case, then why, in the lawsuits which are already pending against BP, does it appear as though they intend to fight them in court the same way Exxon did - for decades, filing appeal after appeal until the judgment against them is reduced as much as possible? Or, preferably, get all the cases heard in front of a judge who is friendly to the industry.

Can The Conservative BP Bailout Be Stopped?

Randal Paul, Libertarian running for the Senate in Kentucky is attempting to paint BP's criminal negligence as an "accident" and thinks we should back off and allow BP to do what they think is right. Former Alaskan Republican half-Governor Sarah Palin agrees, proclaiming, "I want our country to be able to trust the oil industry".

Texas' Republican Governor Rick Perry claims the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon was "just an act of God". Mississippi Republican Haley Barbour thinks the oil washing up on shore is "non-toxic", and, after visiting Petit Bois Island off Mississippi's coast, alleged he did not think it "was hurt one iota".

The Conservative "Blue Dog" Democratic Representative from Mississippi Gene Taylor remarked, "I would remind people that the oil is twenty miles from any marsh. ...That chocolate milk looking spill starts breaking up in smaller pieces ...It is tending to break up naturally". And Conservative propagandist Rush Limbaugh insists "the ocean will take care of this on its own if it was left alone and left out there [because] it's natural. It's as natural as the ocean water is".

Also, don't forget about the Conservatives in Congress who are blocking Democratic efforts to remove the 75 million dollar economic liability cap. The first attempt was blocked by Republican Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, and the second attempt was blocked by the Global Climate Change denier from Oklahoma, Republican Senator James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe. A disappointed President Obama responded with a statement that read, "This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill".

Why do all these conservatives want us to believe that this disaster is an accident, not that big a deal, or (if it does turn out to be serious) the fault of the Federal Government and that we should leave the liability cap in place? Because they think the taxpayers should pay. Who the hell else is going to pay if not BP? And, as I pointed out earlier, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue and House Minority Leader John Boehner have come right out and suggested the US taxpayer should be on the hook.

Boehner later "clarified" his statement, insisting he's always said BP should pay, even though the person asking the question specifically inquired as to whether or not Boehner thought "taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill". Boehner clearly indicated that he thought they should. Silly Boehner, you are supposed to keep pro-bailout thoughts on the down low by using language which does not directly support a bailout, but can lead to nowhere but a bailout... like your fellow Conservatives are doing.

So, can this bailout be stopped? I doubt it. Despite the fact that oil companies are among the most profitable corporations in the world the US government still grants them subsidies of 2.7 billion a year.

In my opinion, the only way we could guarantee that BP pay the maximum amount it is able would be to follow Robert Reich's advice and place BP under temporary receivership. In a 5/31/2010 blog post Mr. Reich wrote, "it's time for the federal government to put BP under temporary receivership, which gives the government authority to take over BP's operations in the Gulf of Mexico until the gusher is stopped".

Taking Mr. Reich's idea one step further, the ANSWER Coalition's "Sieze BP" website advocates the Federal Government seize BP's assets (or as many of their assets that it can, seeing as BP is a British Corporation). I urge you to consider signing the petition, even though it is most likely pointless. The influence of corporate money on our political system is such that what we have, in essence, is two conservative parties.

The Republican Party which is 100 percent Conservative, and the Democratic Party which, in addition to the so-called "blue dogs", consists of quite a few DLC "New Democrats" (whose sellout "Third Way" means they aggressively pursue corporate money to win elections). Liberals are a minority, with only 82 out of 312 Congressional Democrats belonging to the Progressive Caucus.

On the 6/10/2010 episode of the "Daily Show", Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, in response to a question by Jon Stewart, explained, "I'm a Republican, so of course I'm conservative". You'll never hear a Democrat assert, "I'm a Democrat, so of course I'm liberal". Much to my disappointment, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a Bill Clinton Third Way Democrat. One of his first appointments was Third Way DLC Clintonite Rham Emmanuel to White House Chief of Staff. This is the guy who thinks that Liberals are "retarded".

Not to mention the other Clinton era advisers President Obama has surrounded himself with. Which is why Republican Politicians and Commentators calling him a "Socialist" are such liars. Their brainwashed minions may be buying this nonsense, but they know better. Crying "Communism" or "Socialism" is simply a diversionary tactic they use to push us further towards corporatism. The BP bailout is a done deal. Unfortunately, just like the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem and Gulf State economies, the American taxpayer never stood a chance.

SWTD #41