War Criminal Hypocrite

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ...an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses ~ Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith writing for The Center for Public Integrity, 1/23/2008.

When commenting on other blogs I often, when the topic comes up, refer to George bush (and others in his administration) as "war criminals". The reason I believe the label is applicable is mainly due to his invasion of Iraq and authorization of waterboarding. But lately, on a another site the blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) has been "calling me out" for my "hypocrisy" whenever I do it (use the "war criminal" label when referring to bush and bush administration officials).

According to Mr. Marks, if I were consistent and not a hypocrite, I'd have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton is also a war criminal, because he authorized the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorization, which is the "same" thing bush did when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Dennis says the only reason I say bush is a war criminal while Bill Clinton is not is because bush has an "R" behind his name. Of course these accusations are patently absurd due to a few important distinctions between the bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq.

In order to "catch" me in my hypocrisy, Dennis asked me if "George W. Bush [was] lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Turns out this is actually something Nancy Pelosi said, so when I said, "yes, bush lied", Dennis responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything. (5/9/2012 AT 8:11am).

So it looks like Dennis got me good, huh? Except that the Nancy Pelosi comment is from 12/16/1998 (when Clinton was president) and actually represents what the politicians believed to be true at the time. Also, Nancy Pelosi did not then conclude that we must go to war with Iraq in order to "disarm" them, and neither did president Clinton.

Also, what Nancy Pelosi said was in line with what United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported regarding Iraq's WMD program. In August of 1998 Scott Ritter said that, absent effective monitoring, Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

The intent of Pelosi's statement was to keep up the pressure on Iraq and to signal her support for the UN inspections. The Clinton administration was in favor of containment and inspections and not of waging war. And the Clinton administration policy of keeping the pressure on Iraq paid off, because in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "when you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is NO across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

In early 2003 The UN weapons inspectors (who had been absent from Iraq for several years) were in the process of verifying if Iraq was in compliance with the UN Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.

Then, on 3/7/2003, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

So, the question is why - even though it appeared as though Iraq was complying - did bush order "shock and awe" on 3/19/2012 and a ground invasion on 3/20/2003... a mere 12 days after Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq was complying and no WMD had been found? According to bush the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". How could disarming Iraq be bush's primary reason for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein when the UN weapons inspectors on the ground were reporting that Iraq was already disarmed?

bush obviously did not "tell the truth". Given what the inspectors ON THE GROUND were saying, bush clearly LIED. So, not only did bush invade Iraq without UN authorization (violating articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter) but he ordered an invasion to "disarm" Iraq when the UN inspectors were telling him Iraq was already disarmed.

This is quite different than what Bill Clinton did when he authorized the use of American troops in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians by nationalist Serbians in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo. Yes, Bill Clinton bypassed The UN. According to Wikipedia, "the issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution [that said] 'such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter'. China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass".

So neither president's war (Clinton/Yugoslavia and bush/Iraq) was authorized by the UN, and, because of this, I think the case can be made that each is a war criminal - if UN authorization is the only criteria used in determining if a war is "legal". Certainly others HAVE argued that Bill Clinton is a war criminal (do a Google search if you don't believe me). But SHOULD each be charged with war crimes? I say "no", because Bill Clinton did obtain the authorization of another international body (NATO), whereas bush went to the UN and argued his case... and the UN specifically said "no". And not only did they say no to the invasion, they also said no to his claim that Iraq was not disarming.

To Clinton the UN did NOT say "no". To bush they did say "no".

Also, while Bill Clinton authorized bombing to stop war crimes, which resulted in the real war criminal (Slobodan Milosevic) being brought to trial, bush authorized an invasion based on a lie. Iraq had no WMD, which the UN weapons inspectors told him BEFORE he invaded. Later, when no weapons were found, bush blamed an "intelligence failure".

I think this explains why the people of Serbia consider President Clinton a hero and erected a statue statue to honor his actions that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, whereas, in Iraq, one Iraqi showed his appreciation for bush's invasion by calling him a "dog" and throwing his shoe at him (which is a sign of contempt in Arab culture). According to Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television journalist who threw the shoe bush narrowly ducked, his action was intended as "a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people".

"This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq" al-Zaidi shouted as he threw his second shoe. He was referring to the huge number of Iraqis killed since the war began. A peer-reviewed study from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet says approximately 1.4 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Although the 1.4 million figure is an estimate, it is an estimate with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate").

Also, Lila Guterman, writing in a in a January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or it's conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The blogger who declared me to be a hypocrite says the Lancet's casualty estimates are "pulled from thin air with no evidence", but the real reason he objects is because pointing out how many innocent lives bush's illegal war has cost illustrates how enormous and disgusting a lie his claim that "bush told the truth and saved lives" is.

There is also the failed reconstruction, the primary purpose of which was to enrich the bush administration's contractor buddies. Given the fact that so many of these contractors over billed the government and did shoddy work on top of that, and so few of them were prosecuted - what else can one conclude?

Finally there is the bush administration's violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that "physical or mental torture [as well as] any other form of coercion" is prohibited. Under the Geneva Conventions torture is defined as a "grave breach" and individuals involved can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Furthermore, during the tribunal that convened following the war in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court found that these "provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice over groups that have signed and have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

bush authorized torture by his own admission, although the torture he admits to authorizing is "only" the waterboarding of three individuals. But far more individuals than the three detainees who were waterboarded were subjected to torture. The photographic evidence of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib is proof of that.

Human Rights Watch says that "Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded POW status, but the [Geneva] Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention".

In regards to "detained civilians", bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson (chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell) contended that there are innocent civilians being held (indefinitely) at Gitmo. Mr. Wilkerson said, "there are still innocent people there. Some have been there six or seven years". Gavin Sullivan of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights says "[bush] bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the torture of thousands of individuals at places like Guantánamo and secret CIA black sites around the world".

The Iraqi people are aware of all of these factors - bush lying about WMD, the large number of deaths from collateral damage and the civil war the invasion unleashed, the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and detention of innocent Iraqis, the billions that went to corrupt US companies instead of to Iraqis (who could have rebuild their own infrastructure), and the theft of their oil on behalf of Western oil firms - and this is why they will NEVER erect a statue in bush's honor.

Most recently the blogger who criticizes me said that my "ignorant, personal interpretation of international law [has] crumbled to dust". The straw man he has set up is that the ONLY reason I call bush a war criminal is because he violated the UN Charter by not obtaining UN authorization to invade Iraq, but Clinton did the same, and since I don't agree I'm an ignorant hypocrite.

But, as I've just proven, aside from neither Clinton nor bush receiving UN approval for their military actions, the situations are not at all comparable. And, when Dennis says my case against bush rests "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization, he's lying. I'm not a hypocrite, and bush IS a war criminal, albeit an unprosecuted one.

SWTD #116

Melee at May Day's

I'ma steal this boo, when the cops behind me. It's kill or be killed, but them niggas can't find me. -- C-Murder (b. 3/9/1971) AKA Corey Miller; an American rapper and convicted murderer who has released 8 albums. He is currently serving life imprisonment following his conviction for a 2nd degree murder committed in 2002.

William ran down the alleyway with four officers of the Lord Mayor's police force in hot pursuit.

"Halt!" the lead officer commanded again.

That damn Suri abandoned me! William thought while running. He was fairly tired now, what with all the earlier running, but if caught he knew he'd go back to prison for sure. Spying an open door, William quickly dashed inside, barreling into a man who had his hand on the knob and was in the process of shutting it.

The man went flying down a flight of stairs, although he pulled the door shut behind him before his hand was yanked from the knob. William, not wanting to get trapped below ground with no exit may have hesitated if not for the fact that following the stairs down was the only option, what with the Lord Mayor's officers hot on his heels. He leapt down the steps two and three at a time, jumping over the man's body when he got to the bottom. Glancing at the man, William could see he was quite dead, his neck snapped. A pool of blood was already forming beneath his cracked skull.

At the bottom of the steps was a dimly lit room filled with several rows of dirty cots; a flophouse that provided beds for the city's poor for the cost of a few coppers. A decrepit old crone who had been sweeping the floor looked up in shock as William vaulted over the body of the man he had just accidentally killed.

"You murdered my son!" the woman shrieked.

William saw another staircase on the opposite end of the room which he assumed led back up to the street, but the old bat stood directly in his path between the rows of cots.

William hesitated for a split second, until he noticed the old woman had begun to speak in gibberish and wave a stick around. Either she had lost her mind or she was casting a spell. William charged the woman, determined to take her out before she could finish her incantation. Unfortunately he was too late. Suddenly William felt incredibly drowsy. Feeling his eyes closing, William staggered and fell to his knees. The hag had hit him with a sleep spell! William recognized the effects, having been the target of this magic previously.

Fighting the strong desire to lie down, William shook off his drowsiness and rose shakily to his feet -- just in time to see a gray-haired old man charging him with a hefty looking broadsword held above his head. Obviously the bastard intended to behead William while in a vulnerable position (on his knees and almost asleep).

"Look out Father!" the hag shouted.

But the old man didn't have time to react before William skewered him with his weapon, killing the geezer instantly.

"Noooo!" the hag cried as William's attacker fell to the ground, blood gushing from his grievous wound.

William pulled his sword from Father's belly, spilling his guts on the floor. Then William turned his attention back to the old woman who was now furiously rubbing her glowing hands together. William took but a step forward when the woman opened her hands and showed him her palms. A bolt of bluish white sprang forth, shot across the room, and hit William square in the chest.

Pain racked William's body and he staggered back as the electrical energy coursed through his body. William had had just about enough of this old bat! Energized by pure rage William sprang forward and swung his sword with tremendous force. A look of abject horror flashed across the woman's face for a brief second before William's sword separated her head from her body.

His feet touched the ground at the same instant the hag's head bounced off the stone floor and rolled away into a corner. She stood there for a few seconds until her headless body crumpled and fell in a heap.

Exhausted, with smoke rising from the cauterized wound on his chest, William barely had time to process what had just transpired when he heard the door at top of the steps burst open and two of the policemen who had been pursuing him moments earlier thundered down the stairs.

"There he is!" shouted the lead officer, almost tripping over the body lying at the foot of the staircase. Just in time the officer noticed the dead man he had just been about to step on, extended his stride and placed his foot forcefully down in the pool of blood surrounding the man's head. His foot slipped in the blood and his leg shot out from underneath. He flew backwards, landing forcefully on his back.

William turned, not having the energy to run or even lift his sword, and saw the officer's head strike the staircase, splitting open his cranium. The second officer stopped, starring in disbelief at his fallen compatriot. Shaking off his shock, the officer sidestepped the bodies at the foot of the stairs, faced William and drew his sword.

"Me taking you peacefully into custody is no longer an option, murderer", the officer growled.

"I surrender!" William cried, more fearful now of being killed than being apprehended.

"I do not accept", the policeman replied, thrusting his sword at William. The officer's sword grazed William's arm, cutting through the sleeve of his tunic and opening a shallow gash in his right arm. As William and his would-be killer faced off the remaining two officers who had been pursuing him previously arrived and descended the steps into the room.

"This butcher just slaughtered May Day and her family, as well as our fellow officer", the man who had just slashed William's arm informed his fellow officers.

"My gods, look at the carnage!" one of the newcomers gasped. The two newly arrived policemen drew their swords and joined their friend in facing down William.

"I surrender!" William cried again.

"Then throw down your weapon", the officer who had just refused his surrender ordered.

"I want to, but you'll kill me", William whimpered.

"Not until after the trial", another of the officers countered, probably lying. But either way it was a fight to the death William concluded as he raised his sword.

Image: May Day fires a magic missile at William in self defense after William accidentally kills her son and on purpose murders her husband.

 swtd-115. wtm-4.  Previous. Next.

The Global Climate Change Hoax Hoax

The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people ~ James Inhofe (dob 11/17/1934) the Senior Republican Senator from Oklahoma and author of the book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, explaining his view on global climate change.

I come down on the side of those who believe that there is a hoax concerning global climate change. In my opinion the hoaxers are full of *censored*. They know they're wrong, but they continue pushing their untruths for political and monetary gain.

Or, at least some of them know they're wrong. Those would be the ones bought and paid for by the oil industry. Then there are the true believers; those who really believe the debate hasn't been settled, despite most scientists agreeing.

These "no global warming" or "questionable global warming" hoaxers and their dupes really tick me off. Global climate change will lead to the starvation of millions. The human suffering will be beyond comprehension, and these liars and their dupes caution prudence. It isn't worth the cost, they say, given the fact that the scientists may be wrong.

Personally I believe we should err on the side of caution and go with the best available information we have. Information which says global climate change is real, and occurring right now. Insurance companies, faced with increasing claims from severe weather, acknowledge the reality of global climate-change.

You think they aren't basing their conclusions on reams of statistical data gone over by their actuarial experts using advanced algorithms? I mean, I read a story on Yahoo News today that said insurance companies are pulling out completely from certain states in "tornado alley". Do you really think they'd be doing this if nothing had changed? If they could previously make profit selling policies to these people, and now they've determined that the risk is too high, clearly something is different.

That "something" is global climate change. Wake up naysayers, you're being duped. Don't buy into the hoax that global climate change is a hoax. It's real. (Also, the "market" has spoken. The insurance companies say it's real. Don't Conservatives say the market is always right?)

Video Description: Columnist for The Guardian, George Monboit interviewed on global climate change.

SWTD #114

Banksters Threaten Politicians With SuperPAC; Tea Party Useful Idiots for Banksters

The nation's banks have been taking it on the chin for too long. Until this very moment they've been powerless to strike back. Now, finally, the Supreme Court has bestowed the tools on them, through Citizens United, to finally have a voice in public affairs. They can now begin their trip on the road to renewal with their very own SuperPAC ~ David Dayen, in the sarcastic opening of his FireDogLake article, "Bankers Finally Get a Voice With Their Own SuperPAC".

The following is an excerpt from the 4/5/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur and guest Thomas Frank discuss the takeover of our democracy by the plutocrats and the role of the Tea Party useful idiots.

Cenk Uygur: There is a new SuperPAC in favor of the bankers, and they say they're going to buy the politicians. ... Apparently they think they are suffering great injustices. Now, let me give you some quotes from some of the bankers involved.

Roger Beverage is the president and CEO of the Oklahoma Bankers Association, and he says, "Congress isn't afraid of bankers, they don't think we'll do anything to kick them out of office. We are trying to change that perception".

Oh yeah, nobody in Congress is afraid of you at all. That's why Dick Durbin, the number two man for the Democrats in the Senate said, "frankly they run the place". They RUN the place! And this guy is like, boo-hoo they won't listen to us.

Before I go on, let me give you an interesting stat. The FIRE sector (that stand for Finance, Insurance and Real Estate), is number one in lobbying. They are the biggest contributor of campaign funds and the biggest spender on lobbying in Washington over the past 14 years. And they cry about not having enough representation?!

Look at this, more crying here... Howard Headlee, president and CEO Utah Bankers Association, quote, "clearly there are members of Congress who have absolutely no reservations about kicking traditional banks in the teeth, and we are tired of it. We've got to be able to defend the folks who have the courage to stand up for us as well".

As if bankers are oppressed. Oh my god, the bankers! Is anybody standing up for them? It's absurd. But at least they're honest about their intentions here. They basically talk about buying our politicians. Here is Matt Packard, who is the chairman of Friends of Traditional Banking. He says, "if someone says I am going to give your opponent 5 thousand dollars or 10 thousand dollars, you might say 'Yea, OK'. But if you say the bankers are going to put in 100 thousand or 500 thousand, or 1 million into your opponent's campaign, that starts to draw some attention".

You know what that means? That means "let's go buy them"! 5 or 10 thousand won't do it. I need a million, and I [say to the politician], "either you're going to get elected with this million dollars, or your opponent is going to get elected with this million dollars". So you now work for the banks. As if they didn't buy our politicians enough already.

Finally, one more minute of clarity, we have Don Childears, president and CEO of the Colorado Bankers Association, saying, "we need to get more deeply involved as an industry in supporting friends and trying to replace enemies".

OK, if you don't do as the bankers tell you, you're going to get fired. It's not like you're the people's representative, you're now the representative of these donors who have bought you. Now they're going to buy you even more effectively, if you can imagine it. We have the perfect guest to discuss this - Thomas Frank, the author of the best seller What's the matter with Kansas, and he also has a new book out, Pity the Billionaire.

First of all, tell me about the hardships facing Billionaires and bankers in this country. How bad of shape are they in?

Thomas Frank: It's been really hard on them Cenk. They were bailed out. The government was basically giving them cash at extremely low interest rates. It's been difficult.

Cenk: That drives me crazy. 700 billion from TARP (at least), and 7.7 trillion in basically free money from the FED (money that they can turn around and loan back to the government at 3 or 4 percent). They get all this money with no strings attached (they can give any bonuses they like), honestly it's a GD robbery. And here are the robbers crying, "oh, poor us", right?

So the question that arises, and the one you try to answer in your book, is... how did they get away with it?

Thomas Frank: These people who are society's masters are now complaining that everyone is being mean to them; that they're being ground under the heel of a Socialist tyrant. Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

Cenk: When I was younger I tried to read it. I read like three pages, and I was like, this is the most boring book I've read in my whole life.

Thomas Frank: I forced myself to read it last year. It's the most popular book with the Tea Party set. It had a huge resurgence in the aftermath of the bailouts. Everybody was buying it. The book is about capitalists going on strike because people like you and me are to mean to them. [both laugh]

Cenk: This isn't capitalism, it's crony capitalism, where a select few bankers capture the whole system and use it to crush their competition.

Thomas Frank: We're seeing it happen before our eyes. Setting up the SuperPAC, that's what this is all about.

Cenk: It's obvious. They're saying, we're going to spend a million dollars and the [politician] will do whatever the hell we tell him to. Now the question is, how do they get the population to [vote against their own interests and in the interests of the banksters]?

Thomas Frank: The way they do it, and you've seen this unfold over the last couple of years... they represent themselves as a populist movement; as the populist response to the financial crisis. [They deployed the Tea Party dupes to] rail against socialism and economic collapse if we don't return to laissez-faire capitalism. The really crazy thing [is that people buy this nonsense]. They won in 2010.

Cenk: Right. The Tea Party people...the actual voters going to the protests... they have no idea what's going on. They said they were against the bailouts, but they didn't do a single protest on Wall Street, they didn't protest against (even Obama's) Treasury Department. Do you think they know they were tricked, or are they like, "yea, we're fighting for the little guy!".

Thomas Frank: I went to the very first Tea Party rally in a park in Washington DC, less than a month after Obama was inaugurated. The things that they were saying kind of made sense to me. A lot of the things they were protesting against were things that I was angry about too. It started as them being angry about the bailouts, but somehow, along the way this gets turned into a call for a more pure free market. We haven't deregulated enough. We need to double down in the direction we've been going for the past 30 years.

Cenk: They got suckered hook, line and sinker. The Koch brothers sent the buses in. They said, here, we know you need to go to the anti-Obama pro-corporate rallies, and [the Tea Partiers] fell for it.

My Commentary: The Supreme Court Citizens United decision was the beginning of the end of our democracy. Unless President Obama is elected to a second term and he is able to appoint one or more SCOTUS judges, it's over... goodbye democracy, hello plutocracy.

Video Description: Cenk restates the Bankster SuperPAC story for The Young Turks YouTube channel. Quote: "The greedy never stop being greedy". Go to Wolf-PAC to fight back.

SWTD #113

Did George Zimmerman Shoot Trayvon Martin In Self Defense?

Citizens have the natural right and the common sense duty to protect themselves, their families, their communities, and their property... guns are the equalizing tools of self-protection, utopian lamentations notwithstanding ~ Edgar A. Suter, chairman of "Doctors for Integrity in Research & Public Policy".

Everyone who's following the story knows George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems as though if you're a Liberal you're more likely to think it might have been murder, while Conservatives (the hard-right Fox Nooz watching types) are more likely to believe it was self-defense. But perhaps it was neither?

That's the theory put forth by a blogger who calls himself Dale Gribble Rusty Shackelford. Commenting on another blog, Rusty said, "I think this is going to flush out very similar to the Duke case".

Rusty is referring to the 2006 investigation into rape allegations made against three members of the men's lacrosse team at Duke University in Durham NC by a young black woman. The allegations turned out to be false and the players were cleared.

In making this comparison, Rusty must mean that George Zimmerman will be cleared. That is, George Zimmerman did NOT shoot Trayvon Martin. So, who did shoot him? My guess would be that Trayvon shot himself accidentally in the scuffle. A scuffle that ensued after Trayvon followed Zimmerman back to his truck and decked him.

Yes, Zimmerman may have followed Trayvon first, but, if you listen to the 911 tape, you'll find that Zimmerman complied when the operator said "we don't need you to do that" (follow the suspicious black male). Zimmerman said, "OK" and headed back to his truck. It was there he was confronted by Trayvon, who punched him, got on top of him and began pounding his head against the concrete, and finally shot himself accidentally when he went for Zimmerman's gun.

If not for this unfortunate fortunate accident, it would be the shooting death of George Zimmerman we would be discussing. And Trayvon would be in jail awaiting trial for murder.

I'm surprised Rusty did not compare this incident to the Joe Horn case. On 11/14/2007, in Pasadena TX, local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two men burglarizing his neighbor's home. Joe Horn, seeking to prevent the two thieves from getting away with property stolen from Joe's neighbor's home, ignored the 9-11 operator's advice and went outside to confront the two men. After shouting "move, you're dead!", Horn gunned down both men in cold blood self-defense. A grand jury later cleared Mr. Horn.

The lesson to be learned from these incidents is that Conservatives must stand their ground, and, when confronted by law-breaking minorities they should shoot to kill. Because regardless of whether Zimmerman shot Trayvon, or Trayvon shot himself, Trayvon got what was coming to him.

Or, that's the impression you might be left with after reading some Conservative takes on what went down. Personally I think George Zimmerman may be guilty of murder, although I believe a courtroom is the proper place to determine that. I only hope this doesn't end with a miscarriage of justice similar to the miscarriage of justice we saw in the Joe Horn case.

Note: For the record, I don't subscribe to the gun rights ideology of the individual who I quoted at the top of this post. My position on guns is more in line with the following quote...

...I don't believe gun owners have rights. The Second Amendment has never been interpreted that way. Now I am not for taking guns away or denying guns to law-abiding citizens, but I don't think it's a constitutional right that they have... ~ Sarah Brady (dob. 2/6/1942) the wife of former White House Press Secretary James Brady. James Brady sustained a permanently disabling head wound during the Reagan assassination attempt which occurred on 3/30/1981. Sarah and James Brady became leading advocates of gun control in the United States.

SWTD #112. See also PPP #15.

Current TV Shoots Self in Foot By Dismissing Olbermann (Corporate Democrats Silence Keith Again!)

For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it ~ Keith Olbermann on his depature from Current TV (via Twitter), 3/30/2012.

Current TV debuted a new program last night hosted by disgraced former NY governor Eliot Spitzer called "Viewpoint". At first I thought, "This is odd, where's Keith?". Then I figured that they were debuting this new program in Keith's time slot so viewers who tuned in specifically to watch Keith (like me), would continue to watch "Viewpoint" when they moved it to it's regular time slot on Monday (following Jennifer Granholm's "The War Room", I presumed).

Given Keith's history of clashing with management wherever he has previously worked, all the news stories are saying it was no surprise that Current decided to dismiss him. And there are also the reports that Keith was upset with technical difficulties on his program (difficulties that led him to start broadcasting from a completely black set). So, perhaps I should have seen this coming. Regardless, I was still shocked when I read the email from Newsmax this morning that announced Keith and Current were parting ways (I'm subscribed to several Rightwing newsletters).

I assumed that Current was aware of Keith's history and planned to avoid his notorious "clashes with management" problem by putting him in charge. When hired by Current Olbermann was named "Current Media's chief news officer" and given an equity stake in the company. In my mind this meant they were committing seriously to Keith... because extraditing themselves from this relationship would be extraordinarily difficult (and quite expensive).

Indeed, I think it could break Current if they paid him to leave like MSNBC did (Keith received his FULL salary for the remaining 2 years on his MSNBC contract). This explains why Current is claiming Keith was in "breach" of his contract... for taking several unscheduled days off. According to Meidaite, "technical problems beset the program, and since then, Olbermann has been hosting his show from what appears to be an endless black void". The no-show days were intended to encourage Current to fix the technical problems.

Keith, in his role as "Chief News Officer" wanted Current to succeed, and viewed these technical difficulties as an impediment to that success. Although, as Chief News Officer, I don't know why he couldn't have just ordered the problems fixed. Certainly I believe he should have been able to. Apparently he didn't have as free a reign as the title "Chief News Officer" implies.

What went wrong, a Politico story explains, is a repeat of the MSNBC situation where Keith clashed with MSNBC president Phil Griffin. Politico reports that, "Olbermann had a particularly tense relationship with David Bohrman, the former CNN executive who was brought in as Current president last summer, following the departure of Mark Rosenthal, an executive with whom Olbermann got along well".

A 7/28/2011 "Deadline New York" article by Executive Editor David Lieberman reveals, "Mark Rosenthal decided to leave because [Current co-founder] Joel Hyatt was crowding him in... [Hyatt] wanted to run Current again after Rosenthal recruited Keith Olbermann to come on board. ... Hyatt's desire to run the operation reached the point where he and Rosenthal agreed a few months ago to be co-CEOs... But the the channel's too small to require two chiefs. What's more, Rosenthal had held bigger jobs by himself when he was CEO of Interpublic Media and COO of MTV Networks. He was a board member at Current when Hyatt asked him to step in and professionalize the programming, marketing, affiliate sales, ad sales, and research efforts..."

My conclusion is that Joel Hyatt stepping in and elbowing out Mark Rosenthal is what lead to Keith's firing. And, yes, perhaps Keith should have known better, given Hyatt's past association with the The Democratic Leadership Council. (Wikipedia notes that "Hyatt was a founding member of the U.S. Senate Democratic Leadership Circle and was a member of that group from 1981 to 1986. He was the Democratic National Committee's assistant treasurer from 1981 to 1983").

Given this information concerning Hyatt (information I was previously unaware of until researching this story), it's no surprise Olbermann and Hyatt would clash. Because, as explained by Wikipedia, the DLC "has become unpopular within many progressive and liberal political circles such as the organizations Center for American Progress, Democracy for America, and [progressive blogs like] the Daily Kos... Some critics claim the strategy of triangulation between the political left and right to gain broad appeal is fundamentally flawed. In the long run, so opponents say, this strategy results in concession after concession to the opposition, while alienating traditionally-allied voters".

Count me in as a Liberal who strongly dislikes the DLC. It's the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. NO WONDER Hyatt, the president Hyatt hired (Bhorman) and Keith didn't get along! IMO Hyatt should have butted out and let Mark Rosenthal do the job they hired him to do. At least Hyatt should have consulted Keith before hiring Bhorman... seeing as Countdown was the lynchpin of the network's new format. What Current needed was a president who allowed Keith to run things as he saw fit. That, or Hyatt should have objected to the hiring of Keith from the get-go. This whole debacle is clearly Hyatt's fault. He's the one who put himself in a position where a confrontation with Keith was virtually a foregone conclusion.

It's my opinion that Current has shot itself in the foot with this boneheaded move... and Tim Goodman, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, agrees. In his Friday article he predicts that we can "bet on Olbermann to be around longer". That is, Current will fail while Olbermann will find employment as a political commentator elsewhere. Goodman explains his conclusion, stating, "now, let's disabuse those who think he's unemployable given his track record of going someplace and then leaving not too long after, burned bridges and accusations littering the highway behind him. That reputation of his hasn't stopped anyone yet. And it won't in the future. Olbermann's delivered ratings wherever he's been - most recently his defining stint at MSNBC and then Current. If you want to equate him to a diva wide receiver in the NFL (or quarterback or whatever), that's fine. If you're a sports fan, you know that those divas always find a home and always get paid".

Keith's response to the firing, via Twitter: Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract. It goes almost without saying that the claims against me in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently (Huffington Post Keith Olbermann Fired By Current TV; Replaced By Eliot Spitzer by Jack Mirkinson, The Huffington Post 3/30/2012).

My response is... it's back to MSNBC for me. I'm don't think I'm going to watch Eliot Spitzer. He's OK, but Current hiring him to host the lynchpin show for their network is unbelievably stupid. I feel bad for The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur (and gang). Cenk left his gig in the 6pm slot at MSNBC on 7/20/2011 because "he had been told he was too combative towards those in power" and had been instructed to "tone it down".

Cenk's move to Current seemed ideal, because he got to bring along all his friends (from the "Young Turks") and was able to speak his mind (no MSNBC censorship). When I heard about what happened with Cenk Uygur, I thought... that makes sense, given Current's hiring of another individual who speaks his mind (and was let go from his last gig for that reason)... now we've got two strong independent minded Liberals who speak back to power on the same network. "Bravo Current" I thought... AT THE TIME.

The statement released by Current founders Joel Hyatt and Al Gore reads (in part), "Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it". So they're claiming that Keith was uncooperative and disrespectful. Again, didn't they know that working with Olbermann might be difficult when they decided to enter into this relationship?

Dismissing Keith and abruptly replacing him with the inferior (no disrespect intended) Spitzer, especially when Keith was only trying to do what was best for Current, does not, in my opinion, represent loyalty to Current viewers. Difficulties should have been anticipated and they should have been worked out... THAT would have shown loyalty to viewers who followed Keith from MSNBC to Current.

What gives, Al Gore? I thought Current was serious about challenging MSNBC... which is becoming the "establishment" Left channel. Current could have been the REAL progressive channel (instead of another "Liberal" channel run by DLC/Corporate types like MSNBC), but, clearly Current has decided, in letting Olbermann go, that's not the strategy they're going to use to attract viewers any longer.

So, why the heck should people watch Current now? Keith Olbermann provided that reason, and there isn't much of one anymore, in my opinion. I'm disappointed Gore didn't oppose Hyatt's meddling... unless he's in agreement with Hyatt. Then I'm disappointed with him for that reason. Which is probably the case, given the fact that Gore, like Clinton, is also a DLC/Corporate Democrat. At least Gore was hands-off and didn't interfere like Hyatt (although Gore should have said something when Hyatt elbowed out Rosenthal).

I wish Keith luck in his lawsuit against Current, even if that means the destruction of Current and the end of "The Young Turks". The Young Turks was my second (now first) favorite Current program, but if Keith was wronged (and I believe he was) he is due justice. Sorry Cenk, I hope it doesn't come to that. I'll keep watching the "Young Turks" as long as Current remains on the air... unless Hyatt and Bohrman decide to fire him too... for being to outspoken/difficult. In conclusion, I say what we need is a REAL progressive news channel RUN by progressives. I'm sick of the Corporate Democrats being in charge.

Video Description: Cenk Uygur (host of The Young Turks) explains why he turned down a new, significantly larger MSNBC contract after hosting a prime-time show on the network that was beating CNN in the ratings. [It was because he wouldn't play ball with Corporate Democrats].

SWTD #111, KO #3.

Tickling the Conservative Id

There has been a lot of talk about whether Gingrich's recent language, including his performance in the South Carolina debates and his earlier declaration that Barack Obama has been America's best "food-stamp president", amounts to a coded appeal to racist sensitivities. The answer is simple: yes ~ Leonard Pitts Jr (10/11/1957) a politically progressive African American commentator, journalist and novelist, as quoted in his 1/29/2012 publication article, "GOP's Politics of Racial Resentment".

I would not make black people's lives better by giving them other people's money ~ Rick Santorum (5/10/1958) a Republican politician who served as a United States Senator representing Pennsylvania from 1995 to 2007, as well as a religious fundamentalist, homophobe and racist, as quoted during a 1/2/2012 Iowa campaign speech... a comment he later denied, insisting he was actually talking about "bla" people.

The following is an excerpt from the 3/13/2012 broadcast of Current TV's The Young Turks, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Host Cenk Uygur discusses recent statements by Sarah Palin with Alexis Garcia (a political Correspondent with PJTV) and Paul Waldman (Contributing editor at the American Prospect)...

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [Clip used in an Obama campaign ad pulled from the Sean Hannity Show]. Obama has never been seen in the conventional, traditional way as we who would describe a man of valor. And his profession as a community organizer... what went into his thinking was this philosophy of radicalism. He is bringing us back, Sean, to days... you can harken back to days before the civil war. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days when we were in different classes based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards... [End video clip].

Cenk Uygur: OK, that's it... it's official. This breaks the record for the dumbest criticism of the president ever. President Obama would like to go back to the days before the civil war when we had slavery. Who can possibly believe that? How can you be that profoundly stupid?

But Palin says that was "heavily edited". All right, we have the actual clip from the Sean Hannity program. Let's see if she was taken out of context.

Unedited Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin says exactly the same thing as in the edited clip, with a few sentences removed to cut down the length of the clip. The edited clip is an accurate representation of what she said. Her "out of context" claims are baloney. [End video clip].

Cenk: [Scoffs] Oh, that made it much better. ... She went on and on, calling him the "radical of the radicals". She said "radical" about eight times. When you see the full tape it's much worse. So, Alexis, you're in a tough spot here. Are you going to defend this national embarrassment or not?

Alexis Garcia: ...Obama makes an ad about this because it's the only thing he can talk about. He's got to rile up his base. Your viewers are intelligent and can see this for what it is. The president can't talk about the economy, he can't talk about gas prices, he's continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan... he's got to remind his base - look at the Right-wing wackos out there.

Cenk: Alright, a spirited effort. ... Now I've got to go to Paul. Paul, when someone pitches you a softball, what do you normally do with it?

Paul Waldman: Well, you hit it. And I think it does show the Obama campaign sees some political benefit in drawing attention to Sarah Palin. I don't think that's aimed at the base. I think it's aimed at the broader electorate, particularly independents. What we've seen over the course of this primary, as the Republican candidates have tried very hard to appeal to their base, is that the opinions of the Republican Party and of those candidates in particular have gone down and down [he's talking about public sentiment]... and the Obama campaign knows what it's doing.

Sarah Palin knows what she's doing too. Even though you look at that statement and you may think that's nuts... she understands what parts of the Conservative Id she's tickling. Since Obama came into office, and even before... there's been this real part of the Conservative movement in America who believe the way to keep up their support and generate opposition to Obama is to play on racial grievance. To tell people that, not only is he "other", but that the blacks in America are coming for them.

That's why Rush Limbaugh tells his listeners that the Affordable Health Care Act is reparations for slavery. That's why Glenn Beck goes on TV and says Obama has a deep-seated hatred of White people. That's why Andrew Breitbart did that edited Shirley Sherrod video that tried to convince people that the agriculture department was discriminating against Whites. It's this message over and over that Obama is some kind of Stokely Carmichael type figure... despite everything that he's actually done.

If we can go back and find that he some sort of radical association, that will give you the clue that his war on White people is about to begin. It hasn't actually begun yet, of course... because you don't want to talk about the things that have actually happened. It's always right around the corner. Some kind of terrible thing is about to come and all of that racial grievance is going to be unleashed on White America.

Cenk: Unfortunately we're out of time... to me it seems like Paul is right, of course... [End of segment]

My Commentary: Alexis Garcia's response isn't a "spirited effort", it an obvious dodge. She doesn't answer the question, although she's right about Sarah Palin being a wacko. (and about Obama continuing the bush policies in Afghanistan, unfortunately)... but her answer isn't why I decided to turn this excerpt from the Young Turks into a blog post. The reason I did that is because of Paul Waldman's response concerning Palin "tickling the Conservative Id". It's blatant race-baiting. They deny it eternally, but continue to employ it.

Video 1 Description: Sarah Palin on the Sean Hannity program, 3/9/2012. Sarah inserts the racist dog whistles (those excerpted for the Obama Ad) beginning at the 5:22 mark, and ending at 6:47.

Video 2 Description: Mitt Romney on Barack Obama: "He has been awful European". Translation: Barack Obama isn't American. Or, as a commenter who calls himself "tom cook" on the World Net Daily message board recently said, "You can't be just a good old American anymore to be popular; you have to be an African-American, or a Latin-American, or some other wog-American. The liberals and the NEA have made all of the stupids ashamed of good solid American Americans". So, who are the "American Americans"? Obviously they're white people.

SWTD #110

Reason Magazine Advocation Of Means Testing Entitlements Politically Naive

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Necessitous men are not free men ~ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1/30/1882 to 4/12/1945) the 32nd president of the United States (3/4/1933 to 4/12/1945). Excerpted from his 1/11/1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union.

The following is an excerpt from the Thom Hartmann Radio Program, 2/1/2012, which I edited for brevity and clarity. Thom and Matt Welch (the editor in chief of Reason Magazine) discuss the social safety net and entitlements.

Matt Welch: I happen to agree that we should have a saftey net, but where I disagree with you, probably, is that entitlements are ruining the saftey net. You have to choose between one of the two so that Warren Buffett is not on Medicare, but his secretary is [a mangled metaphor, since I highly doubt Warren Buffett's secretary would qualify, but you get the point... Matt Welch is in favor of means testing].

Thom Hartmann: Well, then I'd suggest that you're politically naive. The history of programs that are defined as welfare... that are programs for poor people... is that they're very easy to cut. Even supposedly Progressive or Liberal politicians like Bill Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it". It was fine during a boom time... all the restrictions that Clinton put on Welfare... you can't be on it more than 4 years (I think), and you've got to jump through all these hoops... even if you're a single mother with a couple of kids.

But now that we're 4 years into the bush great depression that isn't working so well for a lot of people in this country. If you start means testing Social Security and Medicare, they're going to turn into welfare programs, and mark my words, someone's going to come along and say, "Oh, yea, people who have income over $200 thousand shouldn't get Social Security. Let's cut that down to $40 thousand... let's cut that down to $10 thousand... and then, finally, let's do away with it".

Matt Welch: I think that's a very interesting objection and one that I'm going to take into consideration. Reason Magazine is going to have an upcoming story on entitlements versus the welfare state. It's true that the vision for Social Security, after people started living longer... the concept was that it would retain it's politically popularity if we spread it among people who don't need it as much.

Thom Hartmann: It's a very small number of people.

Matt Welch: But that's what is sinking our finances. That's the problem.

Thom Hartmann: No, it's not. You know, if you took the cap off Social Security, so that everybody making over $106 thousand paid on all of their income... the Social Security program would be solvent forever. In fact it would have a massive surplus, larger than the 2.6 trillion it's got right now.

Matt Welch: You might get agreement from some of my [committee].

My Commentary: I'm not sure about that last word, "committee"... I listened to the audio several times, but I couldn't discern exactly what Matt Welch said. In any case, I'm pretty sure he indicated that some of his fellow Libertarians might agree with the argument in favor of lifting the cap (in regards to high wage earners not paying Social Security tax on income over 106k). That's interesting. I'd have been positive before that Libertarians would be strongly against raising (or removing) the SS tax cap in addition to being strongly in favor of means testing.

In my opinion Republicans are in favor of means testing because they want to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, and means testing is the first step in accomplishing that goal. I mentioned this on the blog of a self-described "Moderate", and he called it a "conspiracy theory". He also said lifting the cap would amount to the largest tax increase in American history and he would vociferously oppose it. A Libertarian leaning blogger ridiculed the argument against means-testing, saying it amounted to "bribing" higher income people to gain their support for the programs.

But here is a Libertarian, and the editor in chief of the top Libertarian magazine no less, voicing some agreement with Thom Hartmann. I must say that Matt Welch's Libertarianism sounds at least a little more reasonable then Ron Paul's... this is an individual who thinks allowing an uninsured person to die represents "freedom". I'm with FDR in opposing this kind of "freedom". A necessitous man is not a free man. Perhaps enacting FDR's proposed Second Bill of Rights should be a goal of the 99 percent movement? At the very least we need to STOP the talk of "reforming" (cutting) entitlements that even our "socialist" president seems to be gung-ho for (with his "grand bargain").

Thom Hartmann Postcast Info: If you are a subscriber to the Thom Hartmann program podcast, the location of this segment of audio can be found at 7:30 to 9:37 of Hour 2 on Thursday February 2 of 2012.

Video: Ron Paul was serious when he said (to audience applause at the 9/12/2011 CNN Tea Party debate) that society should allow uninsured people to die.

SWTD #109

Rush Limbaugh's Disgusting Comments Regarding Sandra Fluke Versus Bill Maher Calling Sarah Palin The C-Word

Senator Rubio... issued a statement in which he called Thursday's vote "a setback for religious freedoms in America". In fact, it was nothing of the kind. The health care law does not demand that religious groups change their beliefs, only that they not impose them on nonbelievers - or believers who disagree ~ Randy Schultz in a 3/2/2012 Palm Beach Post editorial, referring to Rubio's disappointment in the defeat of the Blunt amendment (an amendment under which all employers - not just religious or religious-affiliated employers - could refuse to include any coverage in medical insurance plans that is not "consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions").

Note: The following is an excerpt from the 3/9/2012 broadcast of The Young Turks hosted by Cenk Uygur, which I edited for brevity and clarity...

Cenk Uyger: In a stand up routine in Dallas Bill Maher called Sarah Palin the "C" word, which is very, very harsh (although this was in a stand up routine and not on his HBO program). Apparently he said "That's the only word for her".

Video Clip of Sarah Palin: [My summary] Sarah Palin has suggested on Fox Nooz that Barack Obama's Super PAC should return the 1 million dollars Maher donated. Sarah Palin calls the donation "dirty money" and asks (in reference to the president) "How can he sleep at night". [end video clip].

Cenk: Here's how I would sleep at nigh [makes snoring noises].

Video Clip of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: [Responding to the suggestion that Bill Maher's donation should be returned]. "We are not, and cannot be the arbitrator of every statement that everybody makes in the policy and political arena. As a general matter, obviously language that denigrates women is inappropriate. [End video clip].

Cenk: Alright, let's open it up to [our panel]. Let's start with Ana, logically. Obviously [both Rush's and Bill Maher's comments] were directed at women. You're a woman. This was really, really bad. What are your thoughts?

Ana Kasparian: The C word is really bad, but as with anything, context always matters. When you look at Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh was not doing a comedy routine, he was being serious. He called [Sandra Fluke] a slut and a prostitute and he meant it. Whereas Bill Maher... look, that word is very, very harsh, but it was in the middle of a comedy routine. I give him a pass for it.

Cenk: OK, now, Jimmy, you're a comedian. Should comedians get a broader area to play in here? Is this fair game in that context?

Jimmy Dore: Here's the problem when they try to equate what Bill Maher did with what Rush Limbaugh did. When you are ridiculing someone in power - that's comedy. When you're ridiculing someone who is powerless that's called bullying. That's the difference. Sarah Palin had power, she was a governor, she ran to be the second most powerful person in the country... she's wide open to ridicule. Bill Maher doesn't have any power over her. Rush Limbaugh used his power to intimidate not only [Sandra Fluke] but all women who might speak up for women's reproductive health.

Cenk: I hear you, but I think the C word is out of bounds. I'm not sure if it is out of bounds in a comedy routine... he didn't say it on his TV show. If he had said it on his TV show - I'd say it's not right and he should apologize. Michael What do you think?

Michael Shure: I think it's OK for them [Conservatives] to say if Rush Limbaugh had to apologize, some of these people should have to apologize. But I do think there is a difference in the arena where you are, and context (in agreement with Ana). I think that does matter.

Cenk: Alright, Jesus, you're usually the voice of reason. Because it's a comedy routine, do you think that word can be used?

Jesus Godoy: I don't think it's OK. But Rush Limbaugh with his history...

Ana: Rush Limbaugh has been pushing this anti-women ideology for such long time... for decades now. That's why use of the word feminazi is very common among people who want to hate on women.

Cenk: I hear you, I think the word "feminazi" is worse then all of them. I hear you on that, but, at the same time, it's not like Bill Maher... and I love Bill Maher, and I agree with him 98 percent of the time, but if someone were to charge Bill Maher with misogyny, I wouldn't say that was out of bounds.

Jimmy Dore: The words he used were probably not a good choice (he also called Palin a "twat"). At the same time I don't believe it's equivalent [to what Rush said]. Rush's was a three-day attack on a woman who was not a public person. And when [Bill Maher used the C word] he wasn't shaming [Palin] for her sexuality, [but] Rush was shaming [Sandra Fluke] for her sexuality.

Cenk: I hear you. I also do not think they are equivalent. You guys are 100 percent right about the context. Now, having said that - when they say, President Obama look at these comments which are harmful to women... give the money back... is that a fair point? Should he give the money back Michael?

Michael Shure: No. I don't think he should give the money back - because Bill Maher gave money to a PAC. On the Republican side you've got much worse.

Jimmy Dore: The John Birch Society.

Michael Shure: The John Birch Society, exactly. That's a perfect example.

Cenk: If I was Obama I'd say, "Super PAC? I don't coordinate with my Super PAC at all". I hear you on the two not being equivalent and not giving the money back, but I think Maher should consider apologizing. What do you guys think about that? Quick ruling, Ana?

Ana: He should consider it.

Michael Shure: He should consider it, but it's fine if he doesn't because he's a comedian.

Jimmy Dore: I don't think he should because it gives the appearance that he agrees that it's equivalent.

Cenk: OK, I think he should consider it, but I'm not the boss of Bill Maher. He isn't going to listen to me or anybody else. Alright, thank you guys. [end of segment].

Cenk: (After returning from a commercial break) In the last segment we asked if Bill Maher's comments were as offensive as Rush Limbaugh's. We asked the same question on Current.com to find out what you [the viewers] thought, and the response was overwhelming. 87.27 percent of you said, no, not as offensive as Rush Limbaugh. Only 12.73 percent said yes. Well, if the Current viewers see it that way, it must be the case.

My Commentary: The comments are not equivalent. I said as much recently on another blog, and in response the proprietor (an individual who describes himself as a moderate) said, "Maher is every bit as much of a dirtbag as Limbaugh. They should BOTH be eviscerated/pilloried, in my opinion".

Furthermore, regarding Maher's use of the C word, I said "I think that word is demeaning to women and shouldn't be used, period. But, honestly, I am willing to [give Bill Maher a pass]. Why? Because I don't particularly care about Sarah Palin being demeaned. Also, "the National Organization for Women (NOW) condemned earlier Maher comments on Palin, [and] Palin responded by saying, 'I need NOW like a fish needs a bicycle'. She isn't willing to accept NOW's condemnation? OK, then I say to Bill Maher - use whatever words you want".

In response a blogger who calls himself "Rational Nation" said, "With your Palin comment you told us quite a lot about yourself. Your character anyway..."

I don't care what Rational Nation thinks about my character. I don't approve of Maher's use of that vile word, but I'm not going to condemn him either (or call him a "dirtbag"). Palin rejected NOW's condemnation of Maher's comments, so I assume she'd reject a Liberal blogger's defense of her as well (if I felt inclined to offer it). Yea, so no way... I'm going to remain a Bill Maher fan. As for Limbaugh, he's a dirtbag and his "apology" was insincere. If Maher apologized I'd believe him... although I know he won't, and don't think he should.

Note: The quote by Randy Schultz (no relation to Ed Schultz) at the top of the post really has nothing to do with the content of the post... although it does reflect how I feel about the Obama Administration's initial decision to require anyone who offers insurance (including religious institutions) to cover birth control.

As pointed out by Constitutional expert David Boies on the 2/8/2012 broadcast of "The Last Word" hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, "There isn't a constitutional issue involved in this case... You don't exempt religious employers just because of their religion. You are not asking anybody in the Catholic church or any other church to do anything other than simply comply with a normal law that every employer has to comply with".

SWTD #108

The Lazy Jealous Liberal Beggar Learns A Lesson

These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people -- Abraham Lincoln (2/12/1809 to 4/15/1865) 16th President of the United States (3/4/1861 to 4/15/1865).

William and Suri ran flat out for several blocks until reaching the bazaar in the heart of town. There they blended in with the large throng of citizens haggling over various sundries.

"If anyone was following us, I think we lost them", an out of breath William wheezed.

Suri turned to William and angrily shoved him in the chest. "Your unpredictable temper has really done it this time", she growled.

"What are you talking about?" William asked, looking confused. "We got away".

"You killed a priest at a temple of oracles William! You think they don't have extraordinary methods of finding out what happened?".

"I don't follow", William replied.

"Divine methods", Suri clarified.

"Yea, no. I think those oracles are frauds", William concluded. "I doubt we have anything to worry about from those hucksters. I'd like to go back and demand a refund".

Suri shook her head in disbelief. "Look, William, we've got to get out of town posthaste. It's only a matter of time until they come after us. The temple priests are extremely influential in this city. We should head back to the inn, grab our gear, and clear out tonight".

"You're overreacting Suri. Although, perhaps we should leave town just to be safe. I have no desire to go back to prison", William reasoned.

"Good, I'm glad we're in agreement", Suri said sarcastically. "By the gods, what an imbecile", she added under her breath.

But William didn't hear. He had turned away and was making his way through the crowd. Suri sighed and trotted after her companion. Suri saw William stop at the entrance to an alleyway. Suddenly he shouted, "get your stinking hand off me you damn dirty beggar!"

Catching up to William, Suri looked down to see a elderly man squatting in the alleyway. He withdrew his extended hand in response to William's screams.

He noticed Suri, smiled, and pointed to his beggar's bowl. "Please miss, can you spare a few coppers for a poor, disabled old man?"

"Certainly", Suri replied, digging in her pockets. She tossed a few coins in the man's bowl.

"Bless you, miss", the grateful beggar responded.

"What the hell are you doing!" William demanded. Quickly he stooped and retrieved the coins Suri had just tossed in the decrepit panhandler's pot. "We have no money to spare. Especially none for you to waste on rotgut", William lectured the beggar.

"Wait a minute", the old man cried, "you took more coins than the lady threw in".

"So I did", William agreed, looking at the coins in his hand.

"William, that is my money to do with as I please", Suri protested.

William disagreed, "It was your dumb idea to consult the oracles, Suri. I think you should be paying me back the gold pieces I wasted on their worthless advice before throwing away your coins on worthless beggars who'll only use it to get drunk".

"Sir, I am not worthless", the beggar protested. "I used to live a modest middle class life thanks to the pension I earned working for a company that manufactured arms and armaments for the King's army. But my pension was stolen from me by the evil Romney of Bain. He took over the company where I once worked, promising greater returns for the shareholders. The first thing he did was eliminate the pensions of former workers. That is why I am in the street, sir".

"Oh boohoo!" said William, mocking the old man. "I didn't ask for your sob story. I've heard of Romney of Bain. He is a great man, not a thief. I also heard that under his leadership the Royal Armaments Company made great profits for it's investors. Only jealous lazy Liberals dare criticize the genius of Romney. He's made this entire city quite wealthy. I happen to admire him".

"Only certain segments of the population have become wealthier, William", Suri interjected. "Others became much poorer. I remember a time when there were barely any indigent beggars, now they are virtually everywhere you turn. But we have no time for this. Please return the money you stole to Cecil".

"Who in Hades is Cecil?" William asked.

"I'm Cecil", said the old beggar.

"He told me his name while you were spouting off about that arsehole Romney", Suri explained.

"Yea, well screw you, and screw Cecil", William exclaimed, kicking the panhandler's pot, scattering his coins in the street.

"That was uncalled for!" exclaimed a shocked Suri. She was about to bend down and help the old man pick up the coins, but they were suddenly beset by a gaggle of prepubescent street urchins. The half-dozen youngsters quickly gathered up the coins and dispersed in multiple directions, disappearing into the crowd. After they had gone Suri discovered the old beggar was sobbing.

"Now look what you did!" cried Suri.

"Wow, those little fu©kers were fast!" William swore. "Well, we really should be going", William said, grabbing Suri by the arm and attempting to lead her away.

"Not so fast", Suri growled, wrenching her arm out of William's grasp. "Here take this" she said, pressing an object into Cecil's palm.

"Now what the fu©k did you give him?" William demanded, taking several menacing steps toward Cecil.

Cecil, clutching the item Suri had given him tightly in his fist, grabbed his cane, pulled himself up, and quickly hobbled down the alley.

William was about to pursue, but at that moment he noticed his belt pouch was a little light. "Son of a bicge, I've been pickpocketed!" William howled. "Gods damn it!" he screamed, turning his empty belt pouch inside out in disbelief.

"What the Hades is your problem buddy?" a nearby marketplace shopper queried.

"None your business a-hole!" William bellowed at the stranger. William noticed that quite a few people were starring at him, which made him very uncomfortable. "Nothing to see here folks. Move along", William said, addressing the crowd. William, looking for Suri and not seeing her, turned and almost ran into the stranger who he had just shouted at.

"Out of my way dumbass!" William hollered, shouldering the stranger violently which sent him tumbling to the ground.

"Stop accosting my husband", a rotund woman screeched, shoving William as he attempted to leave.

"Shut up you fat bicge", William said, punching the woman in her ample belly. The woman fell to the ground like a sack of potatoes.

Now even more people had gathered. Some were yelling and pointing at William. Several uniformed men that William recognized as members the of Lord Mayor's police force emerged from the crowd and approached William.

"Slowly undo your belt and let your weapon fall", the lead officer sternly cautioned, eyeing the sheathed sword at William's side.

William, realizing he was about to be taken into custody, scanned the area looking for an escape route. None of the crowd was blocking the alleyway Cecil the beggar had exited via, so William quickly dashed toward it.

"Halt!" commanded the officer. But William, not wanting to be arrested, sped away as expeditiously as he was able.

 swtd-107. wtm-3.  Previous. Next.