So Rep. Joe Wilson (R-Non Compos Mentis) had a little fit the other night. He, well, hell, everyone knows what he did.>
So now forget it.
That's right, forget it. Don't give the prick one more minute of fame. Red State & WorldNutDaily are giving his ego all the strokes it needs.
No publicity, no censure, just a sad fall back into deserved obscurity.
Bastard.
Update: In light of Dave's post below, my advice is for the mainstream traditional media, not us dirty f*ckin' hippie bloggers. Feel free to trash this moron at will.
In fact, I award him the rare Golden Douche award for Right-wing craptasticness:
Artwork by the lovely and talented Darkblack, in case anyone forgot!
And now, something to wash your mind clean. There are a few perfect pieces of music, this is one of them. Lovely lyrics, amazingly crafted melody, several performances to choose from, but this is my favorite:
In 1984 (!) at the height of the last act of the Cold War and Reagan Worship Syndrome, a movie called Red Dawn was released. It quickly became porn to a subset of the far right in this country, both the desktop warriors who worship violence, and the actual wing-nuts who fetishize gun ownership, and believe that any moment someone, probably a Democrat, is going to swoop down in a black helicopter, take their guns, and force them to go to socialized medical clinics. Just like they did to the patriots at Ruby Ridge and David Koresh's Waco compound.
These folks, both the passive chickenhawks, and the gun-toting militia-loving survivalists, have one thing in common: the enemy is the Left. It may be Libtard bloggers in the US, liberal elites who actually went to, you know, school, or Commies from Cuba, Russia, or Nicaragua. Ask Michelle Malkin, high priestess of the people, and she'll likely tell you it's all 3, and more.
Here's the problem. The only person who wants to have military action in the US, to circumvent the Constitution and detain U.S. citizens, is that stalwart of the far-right, Richard Bruce 'Dick' Cheney.
This new report today from The New York Times' Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston reveals an entirely unsurprising though still important event: in 2002, Dick Cheney and David Addington urged that U.S. military troops be used to arrest and detain American citizens, inside the U.S., who were suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda. That was done pursuant to a previously released DOJ memo (.pdf) authored by John Yoo and Robert Delahunty, addressed to Alberto Gonzales, dated October 23, 2001, and chillingly entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the U.S." That Memo had concluded that the President had authority to deploy the U.S. military against American citizens on U.S. soil. Far worse, it asserted that in exercising that power, the President could not be bound either by Congressional statutes prohibiting such use (such as the Posse Comitatus Act) or even by the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which -- the Memo concluded -- was "inapplicable" to what it called "domestic military operations."
Though it received very little press attention, it is not hyperbole to observe that this October 23 Memo was one of the most significant events in American politics in the last several decades, because it explicitly declared the U.S. Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- inoperative inside the U.S., as applied to U.S. citizens. Just read what it said in arguing that neither the Fourth Amendment -- nor even the First Amendment -- can constrain what the President can do when overseeing "domestic military operations" (I wrote about that Memo when it was released last March and excerpted the most revealing and tyrannical portions: here). Here's just a small sample to convey the rancid taste of that Memo (click on images to enlarge):
. . .. . .
Today's NYT report is the first which reveals that high-level Bush officials actively considered and even advocated that the power to use the military to arrest American citizens on U.S. soil be used.
So, proud 2nd Amendment loving conservatarians, lovers of freedom, believers in limited central government, fans of States' Rights, reconcile this. Your party, your guy, wanted to bypass the beloved constitution (I know, only the 2nd Amendment counts, the rest is liberal posturing) and use the Army to arrest citizens on U.S. soil.
Where's the outrage? C'mon, Wolverines, spring into action.
Bastards.
For another song called Red Sky at Night, here's David Gilmour:
(I worked a gig as guitar tech for Berlin, opening for The Police at Hollywood Park in '83. The Fixx were one of the opening acts. I didn't talk with any band members, but their crew were fine folks, and they played a heckuva set.)
Some assumed the late libertarian philosopher would fall from view when the Berlin Wall fell. Or that at least there would be a sense of mission accomplished. One Rand fan, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, wrote in his memoir that he regretted Rand hadn't lived until 1989 or 1990. She'd missed the collapse of communism that she had so often predicted.
But "Atlas Shrugged" is becoming a political "Harry Potter" because Rand shone a spotlight on a problem that still exists: Not pre-1989 Soviet communism, but 2009-style state capitalism. Rand depicted government and companies colluding in the name of economic rescue at the expense of the entrepreneur. That entrepreneur is like the titan Atlas who carries the rest of the world on his shoulders – until he doesn't.
Thankfully Libertarians are a distinct minority today, and tend to actually be Right-wingers who carp about big-government unless it's helping line their pockets.
But then Shlaes actually, well, lies by misdirection and illogic:
In 1986, a year when "Atlas Shrugged" sold 60,000 to 80,000 copies, the top 1 percent of earners paid 26 percent of the income tax. By 2000, that 1 percent was paying 37 percent, and "Atlas Shrugged" sales were at 120,000. By 2006, the top 1 percent carried 40 percent of the burden.
Yet President Barack Obama has made it clear he would like to see the rich pay a greater share. Anyone irked at that prospect can find consolation in Rand's fantasy, in which the most valued professionals evaporate from the work place because of such demands.
Going Galt, as it's called today. Yes, such producers of goods and services as hedge fund managers and Wall St. buffoons going Galt will be disastrous . . . for hedge fund managers and Wall St. buffoons.
Here's the real story on taxes and wealth in the USofA. It's a fairly long piece from the Univ. Ca. Santa Cruz (likely a communist front), but it spells out just where our tax burden is. (Hint: it's really not the über-wealthy!):
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).
. . . Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007).
. . . A key factor behind the high concentration of income, and the likely reason that the concentration has been increasing, can be seen by examining the distribution of what is called "capital income": income from capital gains, dividends, interest, and rents. In 2003, just 1% of all households -- those with after-tax incomes averaging $701,500 -- received 57.5% of all capital income, up from 40% in the early 1990s. On the other hand, the bottom 80% received only 12.6% of capital income, down by nearly half since 1983, when the bottom 80% received 23.5%. Figure 5 and Table 7 provide the details.
Figure 5: Share of capital income earned by top 1% and bottom 80%, 1979-2003(From Shapiro & Friedman, 2006.)
So no need for worrying about the tax burdens on poor Donald Trump or George Soros. They're doing quite well, thank you.
And Shlaes will continue receiving wingnut welfare and deluding the already delusional.
Here's Warren Buffet on the American taxation system:
UPDATE: The South Carolina Supreme Court has ordered Gov. Mark Sanford to apply for the disputed $700 million in federal stimulus money.
The court voted 5-0, with Justice Costa Pleicones concurring in a separate opinion, that the General Assembly had the authority in passing the state budget to order Sanford to apply for the money. Sanford contended that a federal law passed in February gave him the sole authority to apply for the money. The justices also issued a rare writ of mandamus ordering Sanford to apply for the money.
* * * * *
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- South Carolina Supreme Court justices Wednesday picked away at arguments made by Gov. Mark Sanford in his legal fight to reject $700 million in federal stimulus funds, mainly for schools.
Chief Justice Jean Toal said the case boiled down to a policy fight and that Sanford had already lost that fight when the Legislature overrode his veto and passed a budget law requiring the governor to use the funds.
On Tuesday, sources told News 4's Nigel Robertson that a state vehicle is missing and was tracked down, not to the Appalachian Trail, but to the Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta.
Sources told Robertson that a federal agent spotted Sanford in the airport boarding a plane. Robertson was told that the governor was not accompanied by security detail.
Sanford has been out of reach for more than four days, including Father's Day.
Sawyer has emphasized that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail and that it wasn't something the staff or Jenny Sanford were concerned about.
But sources told WYFF News 4 that the federal agent who spotted Sanford saw him at the Atlanta airport, which is about 80 miles from the start of the trail.
Um, yeah. This from one of the Right's best and brightest? What happened? Weekend binge? Hookergate? Meetup with Larry Craig?
Who knows, except the people of S. Carolina should be worried, very worried about their governor.
Moronic is probably better. According to Steve Benen at Political Animal a whole scurvy cast of wingnuts have joined Oxycontin Boy in the call to have President Obama's agenda and presidency fail.
Over the last few days, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Michelle Malkin have joined the Limbaugh-inspired group of conservatives who are publicly hoping that President Obama fails. Yesterday afternoon, RedState's Erick Erickson kept the ball rolling with an item headlined, "I Too Want Barack Obama to Fail," encouraging other conservatives to rally behind the campaign to undermine the president.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't these the same people who ranted and raved long and loud just a few short years ago when some of us on the left had the audacity to question George Bush's litany of idiocy? If I remember correctly our patriotism was questioned and there were even calls for rounding us up and putting us in Gitmo or something even worse. How short the memories.
Not everything President Obama will do or wants to do is going to get my 100% stamp of approval. For one thing, he's a little to centrist for my taste. If I had my druthers we would have a socialistic revolution and not just nibble around the edges of social democracy. The U.S. and the world needs radical change and this calls for bold steps and not baby steps. For too long the U.S. and the world has been under the thumb of big business whether it be energy or finance. For too long we have spent on guns and not butter. For too long we have screwed the environment in the name of "progress" and destroyed our future and that of our children on wasteful and useless plastic junk made at the expense of third world labor and sustainablilty. We need radical change.
One good thing about all these calls for the failure of Obama is that we on the progressive left could not have wished for anything better to highlight the shallowness, insanity and downright idiocy of the right and with it the GOP than to see them rally around a campaign so antithetical to our history and meaning of what it is to be an American. Keep it up suckers and pretty soon the only people that will rally 'round your cause will be those so bereft of hope, courage and a belief in the power of the American dream that your cause will be relegated to the trash heap of history for the next century. You can sit around and wipe the snot off each others faces while the rest of us try and rebuild the world into a better place.
As Steve reminds us...
John Wayne, who was very conservative, was asked for his thoughts after JFK defeated Richard Nixon in 1960. "I didn't vote for him," Wayne said, "but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job." It's such a simple and obvious sentiment. That it eludes so many conservatives is a genuine shame.
Here is what Obama said in a June 2006 speech to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal.
Obama suggested that it would be impractical to govern based solely on the word of the Bible, noting that some passages suggest slavery is permissible and eating shellfish is disgraceful.
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asked in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount?
While I am no longer a Christian, I am a somewhat familiar with the Bible and understand that it has to be read and interpreted with serious look at the times and circumstances in which it was written. I am also well aware that what stands today as the Christian Bible is the result of some serious editing by the Catholic church around 300 A.D. Understandably, they took a lot of controversial and really good stuff out as they felt the masses they were trying to swindle and control would get some wrong ideas about the whole Catholic church and Pope being a direct conduit to God and infallible thing. That said, what Obama says is completely rational, completely honest and something someone who has come to terms with the warts on his chosen faith would say. I agree with it 100%.
Here is what the Focus on the Family founder James Dobson has to say in response:
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology," Dobson said, adding that Obama is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
He also goes on to say that Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.
In response to Obama's suggestion that;
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values," Obama said. "It requires their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason."
Dobson says that the suggestion is an attempt to lead by the "lowest common denominator of morality."
So what's the deal? Dobson has already ready made it clear that he won't support McSame but here he is trashing Obama and thereby helping McBush. Here is my call. Dobson has apparently realized that Obama is a real threat, not just to McCain, but to his own distorted view of Christianity and ability to influence the Christian right. Obama talks about his faith and talks about Christianity in real terms and it resonates not just with the "casual" Christians but with a growing number of evangelicals, if you believe the polls. Dobson is now coming to terms with the fact that his hold on the evangelical right is being threatened by someone of real faith that makes sense and expresses that faith and understanding in ways that reach people across a broad spectrum of the population. He knows that fewer and fewer people actually care what he and the rest of his ilk have to say anymore. This is especially true in politics, and that's really Dobson's home turf. He may have loads of red-state followers who will unthinkingly swallow the pap he peddles, but his influence in in Washington is rapidly dimming and when Obama is in the White House he will be persona non grata - big time. He knows his time in the limelight is over and is fighting back in the only way he knows which is lying and distorting Christian belief to his own ends just like all the other snake oil hucksters that feed off the Christian right.
BTW, I always thought James Dobson was a minister or Doctor of Divinity or some other holy roller muckity-muck. It turns out he has no credentials in religion at all. In an email issued by Dobson in which he takes offense and being compared to Al Sharpton in the same June 2006 Obama speech he writes:
"I don’t want to be defensive here," Dr. Dobson says on the broadcast. "Obviously, that is offensive to me.
"He equates me with Al Sharpton, who is a reverend. I am not a reverend. I’m not a minister. I’m not a theologian. I’m not an evangelist. I’m a psychologist. I have a Ph.D. in Child Development from the University of Southern California. And there is no equivalence to us. I don’t want to overreact to it, but this comment was made two years ago, and it’s taken me two years to find out about it."
So the guy isn't a preacher or some big wig comparative religion scholar but a child psychologist for Goddess's sake. Where does he get off lecturing people about religion and the Bible? There is, however, one thing this bit of information brings forth and that is... are you glad your kid didn't spend any time in session with this fruitcake or what?
Wes Clark thinks we should stop politicking for Memorial Day. Seems like a good idea, especially considering that Wes understands what the day really is: not barbecue, not frisbees in the back yard, not potato salad:
For one day, WesPAC and our friends at VoteVets.org and the National Security Network will put politics completely aside, and stand in solidarity with the rest of our nation to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or of another party or no party at all, we are all still Americans, and on this day, we should solely be focused on honoring those who died in service. We're also asking that people not protest at Memorial Day events; we have 364 other days to argue policy and politics, but this day belongs to the fallen and their memories.
Today, please consider making a donation to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (http://www.fallenheroesfund.org), which is dedicated to helping the families of those who died in service. The Intrepid Fund has already provided $60 million in aid to families, but can only continue to do so with your support.
As compelling as that is, I'm betting right now the Right-wing smear machine will be at full throttle all through the week-end, and I don't think I can keep quiet with those bastards prattling on.
