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

The Grassroots Organizing Business

There are three critical ingredients to democratic renewal and progressive change in America: good public policy, grassroots organizing and electoral politics ~ Paul Wellstone (7/21/1944 to 10/25/2002) a two-term U.S. Senator from the state of Minnesota and member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

...there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies... bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up ~ Saint Peter (ascribed) referring to false prophets (2 Peter 2:1-3 NIV).

Why is the Left so afraid of Glenn? Could it be because he's shining a light where they don't want it to be shined?

This question was asked in the 7/6/2010 edition of Glenn Beck's "newsletter". Why should the Left be afraid? Because of the soon to be launched "Beck University". Motto of the online "university" is "Revolution Against Tyrants; Submission to God". Obviously Barack Obama is the "tyrant". Because he stole the 2009 election with the help of ACORN, presumably. But now, with ACORN's corruption revealed and it's funding cut, the people of American will "take our country back" starting this year.

The Tea Party morons have been a gold (line) mine for Beck. "Beck U" is another in the growing list of scams devised by Beck (or his advisers) to separate Right-wing fools and their money.

Other topics covered in the newsletter were President Obama's appeasement of our enemies (which started with his "apology tour"). Now, after cutting the space program, Obama has tasked NASA with making Muslim countries "feel better about themselves". The email didn't include details, just a link to a Beck radio program transcript.

He also trashed President Obama's "spin" regarding the touted "recovery". I'm not going to go into either of those topics. I've already established that Beck is an greedy hypocritical opportunist who is ripping off the "movement" he is pretending to lead - with God's help. He's a snake oil selling huckster, racist and false prophet. In my opinion, in any case. He's the one who is going to have to answer to the God he professes to believe in.

Finally, the Beck email contained a link to the self-proclaimed grassroots organization "FreedomWorks". Dictionary.com defines "grassroots" as "of, pertaining to, or involving the common people, esp. as contrasted with or separable from an elite".

In a 9/2/2009 post (Who Opposes Healthcare Insurance Reform), I noted that FreedomWorks contributors include foundations controlled by the conservative Scaife family. An organization run by foundations representing the interests of the wealthy elite is fake grassroots (or Astroturf). The purpose of FreedomWorks is to dupe low information voters and idiots into electing Republicans. Because the Republican Party has completely sold out to the interests of the wealthy.

Referring to grassroots organizing as a "business", which Glenn Beck and FreedomWorks do, shows just how stupid they believe the "common people" who watch Beck's show, listen to his radio program, buy his products, and show up at their rallies to "take America back" - on behalf of the wealthy elite - are. They are programmable pawns to be used to achieve their goals.

I clicked on the link and ordered their "Take America Back Action Kit". The kit includes... "a detailed strategy DVD video laying out how FreedomWorks plans to turn these many protests into electoral results this November, and a Don't Tread on Me souvenir flag. Because it was free. For me that is - of course it will cost them something. Next they asked me for a $20.10 contribution, and I told them to fu*k off. I said this not via email, but only in my mind. Which worked out OK, because they probably wouldn't send me an action kit otherwise.

Although, they did previously send me an "impeach Obama" bumper sticker. That was after I filled out an online poll of their's, selecting all the answers which clearly indicated that I am a Progressive. Obviously they did not match up the answers to the names and addresses, otherwise they would have realized that sending me the bumper sticker was a waste of money.

Also, they must have made a mistake, because a short while after I received the bumper sticker, they mailed me a second one (I only filled out the poll once). I did NOT attach either sticker to a bumper. I took some magnets and stuck it to my refrigerator. Because I find it hilarious! It was the last president who should have been impeached, not Barack Obama.

So, if you too want to screw with FreedomWorks by requesting a free action kit from Freedomworks and waste their money as I did - click the link below. However, as a tree hugging Liberal I must implore you not to order the kit if you intend to throw it in the trash as soon as you receive it. Personally, I could not resist. I'll keep ordering free items from them as long as they keep offering them. It's a way to amuse myself while I wait for Glenn Beck's swift destruction.

9/26/2014 Update: The Freedomworks "free action kit" is no longer available. Clicking the link takes you to a "page not found" error message on the FreedomWorks site.

Also, Glenn Beck's "swift destruction" obviously has not come quite yet. Instead he has become fabulously wealthy fooling conservative morons, earning $40 million in 2012 with subscriptions topping 300k to his TheBlaze TV (according to The Wall Street Journal).

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann has left the world of Progressive punditry and returned to his old gig of sports commentating. Proof that pandering to stupidity pays (and pays big). *Sigh*.

SWTD #46

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

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

Obama Administration Thugs Extort 20 Billion From BP For ACORN Slush Fund!

It is now clear that the Constitution of the United States of America may as well not exist, and it's not just over the slush fund and the shakedown of BP that took place yesterday at the White House. ... Where is the money going to go? What unions are gonna get it? What ACORN people are gonna get it? What Democrats who are experiencing great trouble here in their reelection bids, are going to get this money? ~ Rush Limbaugh, Conservative Talk Radio host and de facto head of the Republican Party, commenting on Obama Administration corruption (The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/17/2010).

There's a sucker born every minute ~ P.T. Barnum (7/5/1810 to 4/12/1891) American showman, businessman, and entertainer, remembered for promoting celebrated hoaxes and for founding the circus that became the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (attributed).

Organized crime in the White House? That is what the header over at Rush Limbaugh's website declares. If only I had heeded the paranoid delusions of the Right-wingers who predicted this! Paranoid delusions that have now, apparently, proven to be true - if Rush Limbaugh is to be believed. The illegitimate President Barack Obama has used the disaster in the Gulf to apply political pressure to BP CEO Tony Hayward and shake him down for a cool 20 billion. The money, according to Rush, will go to Democratic campaign funds, Unions, and ACORN, and NOT towards cleanup costs or to pay economic damage claims submitted by individuals and small businesses affected by the oil spill.

Never mind that ACORN closed up shop on 3/22/2010 following the pulling of their funding by Congress. Which, I might add, was a direct result of the James O'Keefe undercover video which smeared ACORN with a "heavily edited" and deceptive splice job showed how corrupt they were. 20 Billion will easily be able to resurrect ACORN, who will then steal the 2012 election, same as they stole the 2010 election. More Disney characters than ever before will cast their ballots to re-elect the Socialist Kenyan dictator!

In order to make this a reality, the President has appointed one of his corrupt Czars, a sleazy individual by the name of Kenneth Feinberg, who will facilitate the payoffs in return, no doubt, for a small taste of the 20 billion. Never mind that it was Mr. Feinberg who oversaw the "September 11 Victim Compensation Fund", and was appointed to that position by bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft. And never mind that he did most of the work pro-bono. That was all a setup for this, the ultimate payday! He'll probably retire to his own island in the Caribbean after the payoffs have been distributed.

And they will be able to get away with it because it's all a hoax. BP's well did explode and massive amounts of oil are spewing into the gulf, but that was all an accident; not to mention the fact that crude oil is completely harmless. Rush Limbaugh reminded us early on that "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". The people of the Gulf States will be fine. The wildlife will be fine. The marshes will be fine.

Yes indeed, Rush spins one hell of a yarn, which is why he's a multi-millionaire with a brand new young trophy wife. Why shouldn't someone who has sold their soul, and certainly will burn in Hell for all eternity following his eventual demise due to a massive heart attack (what's the holdup re Dick Cheney?), be rewarded in this life? Only one question remains, however - teabaggers who have abandoned their critical thinking skills (or, more likely, they simply atrophied) to the Rightwing Spin Machine who DON'T live in the Gulf region will buy this baloney hook line and sinker - but what about the teabaggers who actually live in the region and DO see their livelihoods destroyed?

That must have been what the eco-terrorism story was for. Or maybe the Obama Administration and BP colluded in a scheme to produce an intentional leak. Teabagger candidate for North Carolina's 13th district U.S. House seat, Bill Randall speculated, "...personally I feel there is a possibility that there was some sort of collusion. I don't know how or why, but in that situation, if you have someone from a company violating a safety process and the government signing off on it, excuse me, maybe they wanted it to leak".

One thing the Right does offer it's adherents are numerous lies to choose from. If you don't quite buy one there's always another. Apparently it doesn't matter if they are contradictory. Regarding the Right's response to the disaster in the Gulf - I think it has never been more apparent exactly whose interests the GOP is looking out for. You can't come out in defense of an obviously criminally negligent oil company and NOT have people see through the blatant lies... can you?

SWTD #43

Conservatives Heart Bailouts

I think it is a tragedy in the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown - in this case a $20 billion shakedown ~ Joe Barton, Republican Congressman from TX and oil industry whore, apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward during a House hearing on 6/17/2010.

But if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there - We're not going to be chumps, and we're not going to be fleeced ~ Michele Bachmann, Republican Congresswoman from MN and certified crazy person, speaking at a Heritage Foundation luncheon on 6/15/2010.

In my previous post I predicted that BP will not bear the entire cost of cleaning up the gulf, regardless of what Ken Salizar or Randal Paul think. I stand by this prediction, despite the fact that President Obama recently obtained a commitment from Tony Hayward for a 20 Billion dollar escrow account (administered by a 3rd party) "to cover the costs of cleaning up the spill and paying damages to individuals and businesses". This is a lot more than what I was expecting BP to be willing to be willing to shell out, and admit that it is good start - but it is still significantly lower than what the total price tag may end up being.

A 6/16/2010 MSNBC Business article notes, "Oil industry experts say it remains to be seen whether any amount of money can fully compensate victims and restore the Gulf Coast". Business Insider reports that, "Federal deficit spending will certainly rise by tens, and maybe hundreds, of billions as emergency appropriations are directed at larger and larger efforts to clean up this mess. At the same time, federal and state revenues tied to Gulf-region businesses will fall". The article concludes, predicting, "A double-dip recession has been made more likely by this tragedy" (5/2/2010).

Although President Obama insists that 20 billion is not a cap, I seriously doubt BP is going to be willing to pay hundreds of billions. I think it much more likely that BP believes 20 billion IS a cap. Or that they won't have to pay much more than a few additional billion. I also wonder if BP was promised anything in return for their 20 billion. Possibilities that I can think of include leniency in the criminal investigation or calculation of EPA fines. Maybe President Obama secured the money by informing Mr. Hayward that BP would be allowed to keep their oil leases and US government contracts (instead of canceling them all and kicking BP out of the country).

My last post also included a quote from US Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue who said, in regards to paying for cleanup of the Gulf, "We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies". I interpreted this to mean that Mr. Donohue was talking about a taxpayer funded BP bailout. So did a lot of other websites, including the Huffington Post, which was the story I linked to. Now, like Boehner before him, Mr. Donohue has issued a "clarification" of his earlier statement. The morning after I published my previous post I received an email that looked strange, and wondered why would I be getting an email from this particular person. The reason became clearer when I opened the email and read the following...

My name is Bryan Goettel and I work in the media relations department at the US Chamber of Commerce. I see you've been dedicating a lot of coverage to the BP oil spill and wanted to make sure you saw Tom Donohue's recent statement issued on Friday, clarifying his comments that he made at a breakfast in late May.

"Clarified" comments as follows...

Tom Donohue: Let me be clear - the recovery costs should not be on the backs of American taxpayers or the businesses that have been adversely affected by this tragedy. As I stated at the breakfast, we believe that abandoning the rule of law and retroactively changing the liability cap is not the best approach. (U.S. Chamber Statement on BP Oil Spill Cleanup, 6/11/2010).

I'm not buying Mr. Donohue's "clarification". Notice that he's still vehemently against lifting the liability cap. Meaning he doesn't think BP should pay the full cost of the "accident" caused by their reckless behavior. Although this time he adds that, oh no, he didn't mean taxpayers should pay either. I believe Mr. Donohue's first statement (the one where he was obviously suggesting that taxpayers pony up the dough), because his fellow Conservatives continue making similar BP butt kissing declarations.

Of course, SOMEBODY has to pay... likely those affected/the victims will end up paying quite a bit - as well as the taxpayers and future generations (when we borrow more money to pay for cleaning up after BP).

Texas Congressman Joe Barton apologized to BP's Tony Hayward for the White House "shakedown", branding the escrow account a "political slush fund". He later retracted his statement, but only because House Minority Leader John Boehner forced him to.

I agree with Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who, on the 6/17/2010 broadcast of the Rachel Maddow show, asserted, "What Joe Barton said, even though it does reflect what they really believe, was not a good thing to put out there" (which is why he really retracted his apology).

We know Representative Schwakowsky's belief is correct because Tom Price (R-GA) of the Republican Study Committee (a caucus of over 100 conservative House Republicans and part of the Republican leadership) is on record claiming, "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics".

Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann believes that that BP is getting fleeced and being played for chumps, referring to the $20 billion escrow account as a "redistribution-of-wealth fund". And Rush Limbaugh suggested, instead of going to compensate BP's (human) victims (shrimpers, fishermen and others with legitimate claims whose livelihood BP has destroyed), the "slush fund" cash would instead be funneled to "union activists" or (the defunct) ACORN (The Rush Limbaugh Show, 6/16/2010).

Even though the fund will be administered by the same individual who oversaw the "September 11 Victim Compensation Fund", Kenneth Feinberg, who was appointed to the position by bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft. So, the bush administration trusted Mr. Feinberg to "administer all aspects of the program, including evaluating applications, determining appropriate compensation and disseminating awards", but now he's so completely corrupt that he'd stand by while people who had no legitimate claim received payoffs?!

These statements show how outraged Conservatives are that BP is being made to pay for even a fraction of the damages they have caused. Because Conservatives truly believe that the rich and powerful operate under a different set of rules than the "small people". Unfortunately it will be the "small people" who pay the larger portion of the final bill. This, in my opinion, amounts to a bailout; and that what this, along with the bush administration bailout of the financial sector proves - without a doubt - is that Conservatives love bailouts.

See also: Right-wing Media Absurdly Declares Obama Admin Acted In "Illegal", "Unconstitutional" Manner by "Forcing" BP to Create Escrow Account by Media Matters for America staff, 6/18/2010.

SWTD #42

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

Racism is Patriotic And Other Right Wing Delusions

Racism isn't born, folks, it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list ~ Denis Leary, American Actor (DOB 8/18/1957).

This commentary is in response to a blog post from "The Oracular Opinion", a right-leaning site I visit infrequently. I say my visits are infrequent because, as of late, I have given up blogging and the reading of other's blogs. I decided to check in today, however, and after composing a reply, decided to turn my comments there into a post for my blog.

The issue the proprietor of "The Oracular Opinion" was concerned about was that five students at the Live Oak High School (in California) who wore T-shirts with the America flag on them (on Cinco de Mayo) had their free speech right violated when the Principal sent them home. The Principal determined that wearing the flag T-shirts on that particular day was incendiary.

"The Oracular Opinion" called for it's readers to show their support for the students who organized the "display of patriotism", by reposting Chris W's (a Libertarian blogger) thoughts (from his blog) on their blog. I agree with the sentiment. Which is why I've decided to post my support for the wronged party - the students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo and subjected to an ugly display of racism in the process! As a frequent poster to "The Oracular Opinion" pointed out - the wearing of the T-shirts on that particular day could certainly be interpreted as a big "up yours" to the Hispanic students.

Other ethnicities have days on which they celebrate their heritage, such as St. Patrick's Day (Irish), Oktoberfest (German) and others. It seems to me that nobody has a problem with anybody who wishes to honor their heritage by celebrating one of these ethnic holidays. The only ethnic holidays some people seem to have a problem with are those celebrated by individuals with brown skin.

The Principal who decided to send the students home was later pressured into apologizing. Perhaps he was being overly PC, but I do not believe he was wrong for taking the feelings of the Hispanic students into consideration. If he felt that they had worn the T-shirts on purpose to make a statement against the celebration of Cinco de Mayo I believe he was correct to send them home. And he should have stuck to his guns and stood by his original condemnation of the American flag T-shirt wearing student's ugly display of racism.

Or not. After reading the actual news story, I think what really happened was that the students just acted insensitively. They saw the Hispanic students celebrating Cinco de Mayo during previous years and thought that they'd counter their fellow student's enthusiasm with a "patriotic" display of their own. When it was pointed out that they were being insensitive and perhaps they should apologize, their response was "fat chance".

Since insensitivity to the ethnic background of anyone whose heritage is different than yours is a vital component of being a patriotic American (or so the Right-wing would have you believe), I've concluded that this really isn't that big a deal. We just need to get these kids (and their parents) some diversity training.

Who we really should be condemning here are people like Chris W who use opportunities like this to spread their lies about America being under attack. Specifically he said that "our history, our culture and our way of life has been assailed by forces from within to the point to where if you celebrate America and what it stands for, you are called a racist, a Nazi or a tea-bagger".

He concluded by urging his readers to "band together to show the anti-America crowd that we will not accept these assaults on free speech and patriotism". This is all complete nonsense of course. It is, however, in line with the "culture warrior" BS perpetrated by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

As for Chris W's claim that these student's free speech rights were infringed upon - in "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District", the Supreme Court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door". But the ruling also said that schools do have the ability to restrict the free speech rights of students if it is "necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others".

So the students acted insensitively and perhaps the Principal overreacted. In the end, I don't really care. What I do care about is posts like Chris W's. My conclusion, based on his blog post, is that those on the Right (Republicans and Libertarians) believe that racism is patriotic. Perhaps you've heard that Libertarians support open borders? The Libertarian party platform states that they believe "economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders", and they "condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant".

However, "freedom" and "liberty" demand that individuals be free to practice racism if they so desire. Rand Paul and John Stossel have been in the news recently voicing their support for the right of private businesses to ban anyone from their property they want to. Of course Mr. Paul and Mr. Stossel both droned on regarding how abhorrent they would deem such a decision to be. And they claim that they would not patronize such a business. I find their protests unconvincing.

In my opinion these arguments are simply a smokescreen used to enable racism. Why else would this Libertarian blogger be so eager to use this story to perpetuate the myth about America being "under attack"? (which plays into the Right-wing meme that we should blame the brown people for our problems).

The effect of Arizona's recent anti-immigrant laws has been to drive Hispanics away from the Republican party. Hopefully this law never is prevented from going into effect, although I have heard that people are presently being stopped and asked to present their papers proving citizenship or lawful right to be in the country. However, regardless of what happens, at least the Republican Party has been exposed for the bigots they are.

Or, at least to the majority of Hispanics. Otherwise it seems that these laws are receiving (unbelievably) broad support. How long will people continue to buy into these Right-wing delusions? We do not need a border fence. I am in support of protecting the wages of our workforce from being driven down by an influx of cheap labor, but the way to do this is through programs like E-Verify. Republicans going after the victims (Hispanics fleeing poverty and enticed to cross our borders by corporations offering them employment) is not the answer.

Republicans claim we need to close the border first for a reason. Because they don't really want to cut off the source of cheap labor their corporate donors crave. What they really want is to keep the "illegals" afraid. So afraid that when their employers force them to work "off the clock" or under hazardous conditions - they don't complain.

And the Republicans (and Libertarians) want us to know whom to blame for our declining wages - the brown people. This is why they encourage racism with preposterous claims of America being "under attack". This is why they have countered "diversity training" with the term "politically correct".

This is also why they attack the Left. Because the Left rejects the notion that we should blame the victims - the "illegal" aliens fleeing poverty who would not be coming here if nobody would hire them once they arrived - for our immigration problems. And because we support a "path to citizenship". Not because it's an ideal solution, but, again, because we do not believe in punishing the victim.

In conclusion I urge you not to fall for arguments like Chris W's. "America" (Loony Libertarians and far-right tea-bagger types) is not "under attack". They claim they are victims when, in actuality, they're attempting to stir up anti-immigrant sentiment. Because this is what the wealthy fascists who fund their astroturf organizations want you to believe. It's simple misdirection. Blame the "brown people" and not the wealthy corporatists who actually are to blame for the decline of the Middle Class.

SWTD #40

Republican's Anti Middle Class Sentiment on Display During State of the Union

A conservative is someone who demands a square deal for the rich ~ David Frost (DOB 4/7/1939), a British journalist, comedian, writer and media personality, best known as a pioneer of political satire on television and for his serious interviews with various political figures, the most notable being Richard Nixon.

The party that represents the wealthy and corporations could hardly contain their disdain for the "lower classes" whenever initiatives aimed at helping anyone else were mentioned by the President during his State of the Union Address last Wednesday evening (1/27/2010). When President Obama said, "we all hated the bank bailout", the Democrats applauded in agreement. The Republicans also applauded, but their cheers were in approval for rewarding the Banksters who almost crashed our economy.

Yes, they speak out loudly against it, and attempt to lay the blame for the reviled action at the feet of President Obama and the Democrats, but it was their beloved President Doofus who actually signed the legislation. I say "beloved" because when President Obama truthfully pointed out that Bill Clinton left us with a budget surplus of over $200 billion, while George W. bush gifted us with a one year budget deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade - McCain could be seen whispering to Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "Blame it on Bush". Then they both laughed.

So while the Republicans may claim they were against the bank bailout, and even though some of them voted against it, secretly they supported it. Because the Banksters are the crème de la crème of the "have mores" that make up the Republican base. And, while the average Joe Republican voter may be oblivious to the Republican's support for the bank bailout, it was hardly something they did a good job concealing Wednesday night.

When President Obama mentioned the Bankster's big bonuses and claimed that "they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need", the Democrats cheered while the Republicans remained seated. President Obama was referring to a proposed 0.25 percent per transaction tax. A quarter of one percent tax would not be noticed by your average Joe investor, but Wall Street speculators who use computer programs to buy and sell thousands of shares per second? It's easy to understand why they would be opposed to such a tax. It's Main Street versus Wall Street, and the Republicans remaining seated while the Democrats stood and applauded clearly illustrated whose interests they (the Republicans) represent.

When President Obama pointed out that, thanks to the stimulus bill, "there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed" - the Democrats applauded while the Republicans remained seated. Despite the fact that "Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster".

When President Obama proclaimed "it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America" - the Democrats applauded while the Republicans remained seated. Because outsourcing is good business as far as the multi-national corporations are concerned. Former head of Hewlett-Packard, and former McCain campaign advisor, Carly Fiorina referring to the practice as "right-sourcing" said, "there is no job that is America's God-given right anymore".

This is where the right-wing plutocrats reveal their extreme hubris - Corporations do business in the United States with the permission of it's citizens. We have the right to demand (or encourage through our government's tax policies) that, if they want to incorporate in the US, they must employ us - and pay decent wages. I say that it's a privilege to do business in the United States, and not a God-given right. If the corporatists don't like our rules they can get the hell out (instead of buying off our politicians which should be illegal).

Most perplexing of all, when President Obama said, "Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college", the Republicans remained seated while the Democrats stood and cheered. I say "perplexing" because, as everyone knows, the Republicans are all about cutting taxes. Except that Obama's tax cuts were targeted at the middle class (rich people were excluded).

This is why Republicans always talk about "across the board" tax cuts - they only really give a damn about cutting the taxes of the rich. Cutting taxes for anyone else is simply to maintain the illusion that they aren't only representing the wealthy. Which of course they are.

Clearly the Republicans only give a damn about BIG business and BIG banks (cutting the taxes of, and leaving unregulated, respectively), because, when President Obama said, "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit", the Republicans again remained seated while the Democrats stood and cheered.

And, finally, was anyone else as outraged as I was when Justice Alito shouted "you lie" (a-la Joe Wilson during the President's speech on health care to joint session of Congress on 9/8/2009), when President Obama said, "...last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests... to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people"?

OK, so Alito actually just mouthed the words "not true", but I was still outraged, given the fact that President Obama's remarks regarding the SCOTUS decision were 100 percent accurate. In 2003 and 1990 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of upholding restrictions on campaign spending by corporations.

This, by the way, means that both Alito and Roberts lied (while under oath) during their Senate confirmation hearings. Alito said that the Supreme Court "has to be equally vigilant about not stepping over its bounds and invading the authority of Congress", and Roberts said that he would "decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law".

Invalidating campaign finance laws is invading the authority of Congress and overstepping your bounds, Alito. And overturning previous SCOTUS decisions is not deciding every case based on the record, Roberts. These lying fascists should be impeached, IMO. Their ruling in the Citizens United case, in addition to being fascist, is unconstitutional. The free speech protection, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, refers to individual rights not group rights. Free speech does not apply to groups! The only group whose right to free speech is protected in the Constitution is the press.

The SCOTUS ruling further shows that Republicans believe that our country should not be ruled by "we the people" but by the wealthy and corporations. As Keith Olbermann correctly noted on the 1/28/2010 episode of "Countdown", the Republicans remaining seated telegraphed to the President "all he needed to know about the opposition's willingness to work with him on the issues that really matter to most Americans". They are not willing to. So why the hell does anyone who makes under $250,000 a year vote Republican?

Image Description: President Obama gives the 2010 SOTU address (1/27/2010).

SWTD #39