Your poll tax and jim crow and greed have got to go

I've had a little hot-blooded commentary at Facebook lately, with some folks responding to a couple of posts wherein I criticized the right-wing movement in the US and those in the LGBT community who embrace Republicanism, against their own best interests.

It all started here:

LGBT friends: Please don't vote for Republicans. They want to marginalize & discriminate against you. Dem's haven't done enough but Rs? No.

My recently found sister Carolyn took issue as a long time self-identified Republican:

Too bad that is what you think of Republicans. Sounds like you don't allow for independent thinking which even a Republican can do. P.S. This is not a "democracy" but a "republic." Look up the difference.

While she is a lovely & kind person, I suspect her knee-jerk reaction confused the issue. I said "Don't vote for Republicans", which clearly means professional Republican politicians, working in concert with the Republican Party. Clearly there can be "independent thinking" by folks of any political persuasion, but that wasn't my point.

Point was, the R party has done nothing I can think of since Eisenhower left office that would in any way help working people, minorities, the persecuted and downtrodden, or anyone else not in their power elite base.

That's all I meant. Increasing redistribution of wealth upward, decrease of civil rights, increase in national dept, decrease in American manufacturing base, decrease in real wages, massive loss of retirement income for many workers, increase in phony financial instruments designed to move even more money to the upper classes, disregard for safety and priority of active duty military, the list goes on.

That was my point. I stand by it.

Look, I know many on the religious right become seduced by social issues: abortion, gay rights, etc. But folks, wake up, you're being played! While certain right-wing politicians truly are anti-abortion, NO movement will ever be made to overturn Rowe v Wade. If they were serious, they would have done it during the many years Congress was overwhelmingly R. But it's too good a wedge issue to waste by overturning the law, it's better theater to rail against abortion as the great Satan.

So please folks, think about what actually has occurred during Republican administrations and Congresses, and then vote intelligently for what will really help you and America.

And if you don't watch out, This boogie man will get you

By now we all know about the Laura Schlessinger n-word-a-thon this week. Seriously, what do you expect? She has a long history of being intolerant and opinionated, much like Rush Limbaugh in drag. Her "advice" is often simplistic and demeaning to the women that call in, so why she still has an audience surprises me. I guess there are still women who need to be scolded for thinking on their own.

That brings me to the point I think others have missed. Jade, the hapless call-in victim of Schlessinger's weird obsession with "what blacks do" and You voted for Obama", was asking for help dealing with a non-supportive husband. Historically I think you'll find that Schlessinger almost always will side with the husband in the relationship, telling the women to suck it up and be a good housewife. It's anti-feminist dogma.

That she doesn't seem to do this in her own life is, of course, obvious hypocrisy. Kind of like Newt saying:

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Moral: Don't be a morality scold if you have no morals yourself.

Note: I won't use "Dr." in relation to Schlessinger. Her doctorate is in physiology, not in counseling and guidance. And outside of the office, no one deserves to be called Dr. except for medical doctors.

Well, gotta know the enemy

Dick Cheney determined to attack inside the United States:

One of the overlooked aspects of Dick Cheney’s speech today was his extensive linking of 9/11 to weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons), Saddam Hussein, and Iraq.

In addition to his full-throated defense of torture, Cheney described the national security context as one in which they foremost fear was “a 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction.”

Cheney said al Qaeda was seaking nuclear weapons and that because Iraq had “known ties” to terrorists, the Bush administration focused on Iraq because it was a regime that “might transfer such weapons to terrorists.”

Bastard.

Seriously, what the hell is he trying to accomplish? The moderates in the Republican Party (all 4 of them) would love for him to return to his undisclosed location, while the base (23% of America) gets a big boner every time he speaks.

Hey, wait! For us on the progressive left, that seems like a win-win.

Go Dick go!

Marching, Marching to Shibboleth

Rumsfeld's Biblical Message-Laden Intelligence Briefs

ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports: Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld prepared top-secret military intelligence briefs for former President George W. Bush with cover sheets featuring triumphant images from the Iraq war with "Crusades-like" Bible messages, according to an exclusive report in the latest June issue of GQ magazine.

Two things really bother me about the above article.

The first, of course, is that Rummy had to make biblical comic books to get Li'l Bush to read the briefings. We didn't know quite the extent of the delusional state of the WH, but we knew they thought it was a Crusade, they said so, and we knew Bush wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but jumpin' Jehoshaphat!

The second is that ABC News did nothing but comment & quote on others' reporting! I'm pretty sure that's what I do. Of course I don't have a Washington Bureau and I work a different job to make a living.

Wow, time for another blogger ethics panel!

The 'link' to GQ by ABC was in the form of a PDF of GQ's article. Maybe I'm being unfair, maybe GQ and ABC are owned by the same corp. Maybe they paid GQ a lot of money to source GQ's article. It doesn't matter, ABC has the ability and resources to have done their own work.

How odd in this time of newspaper's complaining about why they need to be more consolidated and get an anti-trust exemption that they, and TV, get scooped by a magazine.
*********************
Speaking of the unspeakable Rummy:

Rumsfeld's Renegade Unit Blamed for Afghan Deaths
Special Forces group implicated in three incidents that claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians

MarSOC was set up by former defence secretary despite opposition from within the Marine Corps

[...]
Troops from the US Marines Corps' Special Operations Command, or MarSOC, were responsible for calling in air strikes in Bala Boluk, in Farah, last week - believed to have killed more than 140 men, women and children - as well as two other incidents in 2007 and 2008. News of MarSOC's involvement in the three incidents comes just days after a Special Forces expert, Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, was named to take over as the top commander of US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

Obama, you're doing it wrong! WTF is it that happens to people when they get inside the twilight zone DC Beltway? (please notice another distinction between the Dems and Repubs, even when our folks win, we still castigate them for breaking their promises. It's called not marching in lockstep and living in a reality based world.)
******************
Wow, either Rummy's tentacles were everywhere or the Bush apologists are really polishing that turd! From the above GQ article, now quoted by the Times-Picayune we bring you Katrina and the Waves!

GQ report blames Rumsfeld for military delay after Katrina
by The Times-Picayune

A report on the GQ magazine Web site is quoting unnamed former Bush administration official as blaming former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for many failures, including a delay in military assistance in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

The report says "in speaking with the former Bush officials, it becomes evident that Rumsfeld impaired administration performance on a host of matters extending well beyond Iraq to impact America's relations with other nations, the safety of our troops, and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Yeees, of course Bush had nothing to do with it! He didn't know! He even complained he didn't know. It's not like he was in charge or anything.

Once again, maybe I'm being unfair. After all, the TV News and the newspapers are just reporting what a magazine said. (Notice how all the news outlets are distancing themselves from GQ by saying "A report on the GQ magazine", like they can't, umm, you know, like call their own sources or develop sources?)

At least GQ had some facts and document photos for their article.

I guess what I'm saying, after meandering around the point, is that TV and print news have the resources to find out whether the 'anonymous officials' are telling the truth. And get those folks on record. Don't just quote another source that you haven't confirmed and that they gave anonymity to, don't do the Drudge work.

I don't usually do journalism, I just do commentary on news articles. But sheesh, even I double check the stories I comment on!

According to their standards I could say 'GoatF**ker Today just reported you swallow anything! Headlines at 11.'



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

There's battle lines being drawn

Watching Wanda Sykes at the WH Correspondent's Dinner, I admit I cringed a bit when she called Rush Limbaugh "the 20th hikacker". But that's because I am aware of decency and have some morals.

But then I thought better of it, and decided she was within her rights, because Limbaugh has renounced all human decency a long time ago. Still, the right and its apologists were quick to jump on the bandwagon. From Media Matters:

At the WSJ, James Taranto is quite upset that liberals (including that "smug" Obama!) laughed at two jokes that Taranto and the rest of the GOP humor police have decided should not have been laughed at.

Taranto then unintentionally provides some comic relief himself as he patiently explains why the Limbaugh jokes were so awful:

Why do liberals find this joke funny when they should find it embarrassing? The answer, it seems clear, is that this is an example of shock humor: a genre that relies on the frisson of violating taboos. By our count, Sykes runs afoul of five taboos in her Limbaugh joke: She equates dissent with treason. She likens a domestic political opponent to a foreign enemy. She makes fun of the disabled (Limbaugh's past addiction to painkillers would entitle him to protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act). She makes light of a form of interrogation that some people consider torture. And she wishes somebody dead.

The comedy gold, of course, is that Taranto unwittingly describes, point-for-point, the Rush Limbaugh show as its been heard for nearly two decades. But over that 20 years time, how many times has Taranto taken to the Op-ed town hall to tsk-tsk Limbaugh's brand of hateful humor? This is just a guess, but I'm guessing it's a bullseye: ZERO.

When Limbaugh or the GOP Noise Machine equates dissent with treason, likens political opponents to a foreign arm, mocks the disabled (paging Michael J. Fox), makes fun of interrogation and wishes somebody dead, it's funny and insightful. But when a liberal comedian does it, guess what? It's the end of the world as we know it.

The real comedy gold is in the comments there:

She equates dissent with treason.
Limbaugh: disagreeing with Bush, "because the people that disagree with him want to lose." AND "It's about time we do challenge their patriotism. The far-left fringe in this country is actively seeking our defeat."

She likens a domestic political opponent to a foreign enemy.
Limbaugh: "every time I hear a tape from [Al Qaeda leader] Ayman al-Zawahiri or a so-called dispatch from bin Laden, whenever I hear from any of these Middle East Al Qaeda terrorists, I think I'm hearing Democrat [sic] Party talking points."

She makes fun of the disabled (Limbaugh's past addiction to painkillers would entitle him to protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act).
Limbaugh on Michael J Fox: "And it's purely an act. This is the only time I have ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the disease he has." Limbaugh later added that "this is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting, one of the two."

She makes light of a form of interrogation that some people consider torture.
Limbaugh: "I just slapped myself. I'm torturing myself right now. That's torture according to these people." AND "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture."

And she wishes somebody dead.
Limbaugh fill in Mark Davis: On Feherety joke about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid being killed by US troops, "his words speak enormous volumes" AND "He has nothing to apologize for." Limbaugh wishes a murder occurred at Fort Macy Park, and probably still believes one occurred.

The real sin Wanda Sykes committed was treating Rush Limbaugh, for 5 minutes, how he treats Democrats and Liberals daily for three hours.

So stop whining, right-wingers. Clean up your own house before you start complaining about ours.

Bastards.

It's crazy but it's true, I only want to be with you

(Damn, she could sing. Girl singers today: Study.)

Alberto Gonzales famously said the war on terrorism:

"renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions."

I think the modern world renders quaint some of the grandiose ideas of States' Rights:

The principle of the supremacy of federal powers over those powers held by the states is based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of the Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the States.

. . . In 1964, the issue of fair housing in California involved the boundary between state laws and federalism. California Proposition 14 overturned the Rumsford Fair Housing Act and allowed discrimination in any type of home sale. Martin Luther King, Jr. and others saw this as a backlash against civil rights. Actor Ronald Reagan gained popularity by supporting Proposition 14, and was later elected governor of California. The U.S. Supreme Court's Reitman v. Mulkey decision overturned Proposition 14 in 1967 in favor of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Another concern is the fact that on more than one occasion, the federal government has threatened to withhold highway funds from states which did not pass certain articles of legislation. Any state which lost highway funding for any extended period would face financial impoverishment, infrastructure collapse or both. Although the first such action (the enactment of a national speed limit) was directly related to highways and done in the face of a fuel shortage, most subsequent actions have had little or nothing to do with highways and have not been done in the face of any compelling national crisis. An example of this would be the federally mandated drinking age of 21. Critics of such actions feel that when the federal government does this they upset the traditional balance between the states and the federal government.

In today's OCRegister, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman fantasizes about States' Rights and same-sex marriage:

Why not? Because of a huge imbalance created by that longtime nemesis of state sovereignty – the federal government. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Virginia has complete authority to deny the privileges and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex partners. But Iowa doesn't have the complete authority to grant them.

Oh, Iowa can provide recognition to gay marriages under all its laws and policies. But that's a surprisingly small part of what marriage encompasses. Under federal law, there are more than 1,100 rights and privileges that go with being a husband or wife. And none of them is available to married same-sex couples.

And then, schizophrenically, he lays blame for this state-variable situation, which he loves, on the awful DOMA:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States," says DOMA, "the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

While I agree that DOMA sucks hard, Chapman's blaming it for lousy state decisions is dishonest. He is a full-throated supporter of States' Rights. In his perfect world, CA could vote for same-sex marriage, while TX could legalize marriage between adult men and lizards. It's all OK if the state says so.

I really think the concept is outmoded. Much has been said about TX Gov. Rick Perry's call to secession, which is the ultimate expression of States' Rights. I think that's a fine idea, as long as TX is willing to never take another $$ from the American taxpayers. And since, like most of the red states, they take more in federal funds than they pay in taxes, that's going to stop too.

You fix your own highways, support your own schools, and protect your own border.

You coin your own money, print your own stamps, and clean up your own toxic waste sites.

You fund your own military, all your national park land, and take care of your own disasters.

Certain laws, like civil rights, had to be enacted at the federal level. Why? Because the states didn't. Too many reactionary politicians, along with ignorant populations, felt that equal rights were ok for them, but not for anyone else. So the feds took command.

Same-sex marriage is a similar situation. If states' want to discriminate against their citizens, then fine. Except they won't be states anymore. Like TX seems to want. Thing is, when federal dollars help me, it's my right. When they help someone else, it's socialism or tyranny.

Suck on it, states.

'All hands on deck, we've run afloat!' I heard the captain cry

Everyone knows about the Somali Pirates that tried to capture an American ship, took the captain hostage, and were killed by Navy SEALS saving the captain's life.

An example of sensible use of US military power, to protect US citizens and property from foreign criminals?

Making sure the free market can safely export American-made goods?

Swatting down third-world thugs who haven't worked hard for their reward, as the American Dream demands?

No, it's racist cruelty and anti-Muslim oppression. Just ask Rush Limbaugh:

RUSH: You know what we have learned about the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers that were wiped out at the order of Barack Obama, you know what we learned about them? They were teenagers. The Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were inexperienced youths, the defense secretary, Roberts Gates, said yesterday, adding that the hijackers were between 17 and 19 years old. Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas. Greetings and welcome back, Rush Limbaugh, the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.

They were kids. The story is out, I don't know if it's true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these US Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That's the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.

Emphasis mine. Not really much more to say, the stupid speaks for itself. So anxious to hate on Obama, Rush "Jabba The Hutt" Limbaugh spins like Nureyev to twist the story to make the murderous thugs on the open seas look good.

And this is the guy all Conservative politicians must bow down before and swear fealty to.

Works for me. Keep it coming, Rush. You do my party good.

Train I ride, 16 coaches long

The runaway train carrying the trailer-park Family Palin just keeps hurtling down the tracks. Sarah says:

By the way, it would be over my dead body that a kid would live with my teenage daughter.

Damn. Stand proud. Except that young Levi Johnston, even without living with Bristol, had no trouble impregnating her.

And Fox News reported not that long ago that all was just ducky in the Palin/Johnston camp:

Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says both her 18-year-old daughter Bristol, who gave birth to son Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston on Saturday, and fiance Levi Johnston are working hard to balance schoolwork with their new parental obligations, People Magazine reported.

"You need to know that both Levi and Bristol are working their butts off to parent and going to school and working at the same time," the Alaska governor told the magazine in a phone message. "They are certainly not high school dropouts."

Any suggestion to the contrary "harms Bristol's reputation and Levi's reputation and their chances for good work opportunities," Pail(sic) said.

. . . Sherry Johnston, Levi's mother, said in October that Bristol and her son were considering a summer wedding.

Levi Johnston told The Associated Press that month that he and Bristol loved each other and wanted to get married. Johnston, who dropped out of high school to take a job on the North Slope oil fields as an apprentice electrician, said he was a little shocked to learn that Bristol was pregnant, but he quickly warmed to the idea of being a father.

He said the two had planned to get married even before Bristol became pregnant.

Emphasis mine. Someone might want to actually watch what spell-check says, before hitting "enter".

Fox News: We whatever, you have no idea.

And Palin as Republican Party standard bearer: That's some family values we can believe in.

In the church of the poisoned mind

Barney Frank has long been a favorite whipping boy of the Radical Right. Although not telegenic and prone to brusqueness, he still is a smart guy, with facts, details, and policies that are very progressive.

He spoke at Harvard Kennedy School forum Monday night, and was ambushed by a right-wing Fox plant student who asked a dishonest question. Here's the exchange:



Student's name is reportedly Joel Pollak. We're pretty sure it's the Joel Pollak who writes this pro-Israel anti-everyone else blog:

Speaking of violence, it’s worth recalling what Israel did in Gaza in response to sporadic Hamas rockets. It killed upward of 1,300 people, many of them women and children; caused damage estimated at $1.9 billion; and destroyed thousands of Gaza homes. It continues a radicalizing blockade on 1.5 million people squeezed into a narrow strip of land.

At this vast human, material and moral price, Israel achieved almost nothing beyond damage to its image throughout the world. Israel has the right to hit back when attacked, but any response should be proportional and governed by sober political calculation. The Gaza war was a travesty; I have never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions.

"Sporadic" rockets? Try thousands of rockets and mortars over a sustained 7-year period. 1,300 people? Women and children? Estimated by whom? Blockade? I have never previously felt so shamed by America's "newspaper of record," not since Bob Herbert's bogus claims of racism and phallic imagery in last year's American presidential campaign. Cohen's swallowed the propaganda and regurgitates it for all to see.

Ok then. And last year he posted this at the NextRight:

Compare JohnMcCain.com to TeamSarah.org. On JohnMcCain, you can find a lot of great information and get ads and e-mails but you can't design too much of your own content or connect to other users. In contrast, TeamSarah operates like Facebook. You can create your own page and find friends and all of that. No wonder it has tens of thousands of members already.

The danger of using a networking approach is that you get just about anybody on your site. So Obama has antisemites and 9/11 Troofers and all sorts of offensive people on his presidential campaign page. If the media cared to vet him at all, this would be a huge scandal. But with good editing (and Obama has cared as much about editing as he has about credit card fraud) you can keep the crazies out.

And this re: Mr. Pollak:

Another Harvard student promptly defenestrated two of Pollak's claims, in a letter to the Post. "Mr. Pollak claimed that the maps in 'Al-Kitaab' do not include Israel. There are three maps in the book: On Page 13, Israel is represented without the West Bank and Gaza. On Page 389, two historical maps (from the Ottoman era to World War I) predate Israel's existence."

And more about Mr. Pollak, who seems to be earning a reputation as a movement conservative beacon:

Other interesting reactions to Joel Pollak's zany oped in the Washington Post are surfacing. Many refute his characterization of a standard Arabic textbook, Al-Kitaab, as propagandistic. Far from being based on facts, his piece exposed the currency of anti-Arab bias. Even esteemed outlets like the Post drop the evidentiary standards for gobbly-gook such as Pollak's.

Pollak, a research assistant for prolific torture advocate Alan Dershowitz, was recently called a "precocious neo-con" by Phillip Weiss. The journalist dismissed Pollak's analysis as "condescending" out-dated Orientalism.

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias hit back at Pollak with a sharp, satirical riff applauding his courage to "speak truth to weakness and stand up for the view that as narrow a range of opinions as possible should be expressed in America." [The comments section of his blog are quite illuminating as well -- one commenter used the book at the US Military's Defense Language Institute.]

Seriously, just do the obvious Google search and you have plenty of material to document the earnest yet narrow view of reality that Pollak endorses. For him to take on Barney Frank with an empty quiver of knowledge shows, once again, the vapidity of the Right.

Dude, I hope your 15 minutes were totally awesome. Because now you're going to have to find a gig at the New Republic. Or Pajamas Media. And I hope you don't think you're entitled to unemployment, because that's only for Lefties. Democrats. Liberals. Remember, your side opposes benefit extension? Better not be asking the government to help.

Bastard.

All right now, baby it's all right now

About as often as Halley's Comet drops by for a visit, a conservative is correct. When it happens, it quite joyful. Witness publius at Obsidian Wings:

The fight over the stimulus – a preview of the budget wars to come – has obviously taken on larger ideological dimensions. And the stakes are high. It’s a fight over the very idea of whether government can play a positive role in people’s lives. That’s in part why the Republicans are fighting it so hard.

The ideological debate is often taking place at a very abstract level – with anti-government advocates warning of vague unspecified dangers that will follow government spending. Last month, for instance, Jindal said in a speech that increasing spending “will have dire consequences for not only this time, but also for the future of America.”

It’s nice, then, to see some actual concrete vindication of government assistance. And it’s especially nice to see it in a state governed by Bobby Jindal.

The NYT reports that the massive post-Katrina relief effort has – shockingly – helped the people of Louisiana a great deal.

The experiment is still playing out, but some indicators suggest that what occurred in Louisiana — dumping a large amount of reconstruction money into a confined space in the three and a half years since Hurricane Katrina — has had a positive outcome. The state’s unemployment rate of 5.7 percent in February was considerably below the national average of 8.1 percent, and it was the only state to see a drop in unemployment from December to January. It was also the only state with an increase in non-farm employment in February.

Thus is the ideological shallowness of Jindal as poster boy for the new Right exposed. Publius' analysis is a good read. He ends with this:

I’m not saying this settles the debate. But it does show that government can play a significantly positive role in people’s lives.

And it reinforces a much larger point -- people like me prefer certain types of government spending because it helps people. It’s not much more complicated than that. I think national health care, broadband investment, and energy reform will help people.

And to help the public come around to that view, it’s important to advertise the successes of government done right – to show them the benefits. Democrats don’t do enough of that.

Indeed.

Come along and sing a song And join the jamboree

Bobby Jindal, Mark Sanford, Rick Perry: you ungrateful hypocritical ideologue bastards:

In a budget proposal released Friday afternoon, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal indicated he is only rejecting $98 million of the federal stimulus funds due his state.

That figure is far less than the $700 million South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has indicated he may reject if the federal government does not allow Sanford to use that money to pay down his state's debt.

. . . Jindal's announcement also comes a day after Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he would reject the $555 million in federal funds direct to his state to expand unemployment benefits.

Kids, the money isn't to pay down your state's debt, that's your own goddam problem. The money is for, hold on now, STIMULUS of the economy, and a major part of that is to extend unemployment benefits. Hear that Gov. Goodhair? Because people, when they are either employed or getting unemplyment benefits, inject money into the economy.

But no, says Gov. Jindal (R-OverHisHead):

Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday he doesn’t want Louisiana to tap into $98 million in stimulus money for expanding unemployment benefits for thousands of people who wouldn’t normally be eligible to receive them.

The Republican governor repeatedly had said he wasn’t sure the state should draw down all the stimulus money it’s eligible to receive, but the announcement was the first detail he’s offered about dollars he wants to refuse.

. . . The dollars that Jindal intends to reject could provide unemployment aid to 4,000 to 6,000 more Louisiana residents, the state labor department estimates. But the acceptance would require a permanent change in state law that would force businesses to pay higher unemployment taxes once the federal dollars run out, Jindal said.

Yep, we can't offer unemployment to those poor people who don't have jobs because TAXESTAXESTAXES!! Is this even true?

The basic thought is that if unemployment benefits are expanded to people previously not eligible, the when the Stimulus bucks run out, the state will have to raise taxes to keep up the benefits.

While googling the hell out of this, I found many weasel words: might, may, could, possibly, especially when reading news reports about the above-named Senators, and on Right-wing blogs. But little in the way of actual attribution to the actual text of the actual stimulus bill.

So I dunno. Maybe Gov's Jindal, Sanford, and Perry are right, that they would have to raise taxes to fix the clusterfuck that their state economies have become. Heck, even here in CA, Ahnuld has agreed to a state tax increase, because, well, we need it!

I think the House and the Senate missed a wonderful opportunity to make the Stimulus all-in: you take all, or nothing.

Or maybe Bobby, Mark, and Rick are wrong. Or maybe they're just actors on the Mickey Mouse Club; they certainly sound like it. If they were, I'd believe them more. Regardless, the Republican party has dwindled in relevance to somewhere just above the WCTU, and far below the Mickey Mouse Club:

Now, if you're feeling kinda low 'bout the dues you've been paying

Actually, I love it when the Right gets it right. From Rod Dreher at BeliefNet, a crunchy con:

Verily, that's the way to bring the party back: blame the media. I talked to a conservative the other day who assured me that Obama's success is entirely a creation of the lying biased media, which tricked people into voting for him. The unpopularity of Republican policies has nothing to do with it. Why, we have that from the mouth of America's Top Conservative, who said at CPAC:

Rush Limbaugh, touted by many conservatives as the de facto head of the party in the interregnum, closed the conference with his own speech. "We can take this country back," the radio host told the assembly. "All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that."

Yep, it's just that easy. No need to return to first principles and recalibrate policies to account for new realities. Just find a better messenger for the same old same old. You begin to see why nobody inside that bubble could grasp what a flop Bobby Jindal's reheated Republican mush of a speech was going to be ahead of time. Here's a transcript of the entire Limbaugh CPAC speech. Take a look at this passage, and please tell me what is conservative about it?:

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

This is a comforting lie. It is Rousseau conservatism: the idea that man is born innocent, but corrupted by society, or government. Remove the chains of government, and man will return to his natural, good state, which is one of limitless possibility. This denies two bedrock truths of philosophical conservatism, which are that 1) human nature is fallen, and 2) man must learn to live within limits. A conservatism that is not founded on a conscious recognition of those two truths is a false conservatism, and has a shaky foundation from which to criticize liberal utopianism.

There's more, the whole thing is a revelation in non-insane conservative thinking, somethine we don't get to hear too often. Rod adds this:

Anybody who challenges Limbavian orthodoxy is, ipso facto, the Enemy. If you suggest reform, even from the Right, you are a useful idiot for the Media, which are the Enemy, and can never be anything but the Enemy. Limbaughism sounds a lot like Leninism.

I loved it when the Soviet Union went down and the wall went down and the liberals in our country said you know they may not be ready for freedom over there. They've been oppressed -- yes, liberals will gladly tell you who can have freedom and who can't.

Um, what were the Nineties like in the former Soviet Union? That experiment proved that free markets and liberal democracy can't take hold without the cultural and social preconditions for same. Ditto Iraq. But the Limbavian ideologues, these Right-Wing Rousseauists, see human nature as essentially perfect, except for the corrupting hand of government.

Nicely done, sir.

I’m in a rush, rush (gotta keep on movin’)

What we've all been waiting for: ImSorryRush.com

You can fill out a form and create your own apology, well, actually, you can create apologies by Michael Steele, Phil Gingrey, Mark Sanford, or soon, Eric Cantor.

And wonderful freshman Congressman has issued his own apology (h/t Howie):

Late this afternoon, in keeping with apologies to Rush Limbaugh from Georgia Republican Phil Gingrey and RNC Chairman Michael Steele, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) issued the following statement:

“I’m sorry Limbaugh called for harsh sentences for drug addicts while he was a drug addict. I’m also sorry that he’s bent on seeing America fail. And I’m sorry that Limbaugh is one sorry excuse for a human being.”

The Congressman then rejoined his Democratic colleagues in working on cleaning up George W. Bush’s mess.

Walk right back . . .

TheNextRight.com fancies itself as the new intellectual side of the Republican movement. Staffed by earnest young conservatives, it tries to present non-wingnut ideas that still reflect a conservative world view. Don't start laughing yet, the punch line comes later.

After the Epic Fail of Bobby Jindal's rebut of Pres. Obama's not-State-of-the-Union speech the other night, the Next Rightians try to rehabilitate the guy some think will be the candidate in '12.

Let's see how that works out:

With his actions during that natural disaster and his words as a result, we can see his most basic ideals laid bare. And they are ideals we should all applaud. So, as a reminder here are some highlights of his op ed in the Wall Street Journal from September 8, 2005. Jindal began his piece with these words:

Over the past few days, America has been both moved and disturbed by television footage of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. But for those of us in Louisiana still struggling to cope, the troubling images are of opportunistic politicians playing the blame game while there is so much real work to do.

Rather than point fingers, we should be fixing the situation on the ground. And that will include taking steps to ensure that red tape doesn't stifle the continued security and rebuilding efforts.

There have already been a number of instances in which an overly inhibitive bureaucracy prevented an appropriate response to the disaster. For example, on Wednesday of last week a company called my office. With only three hours before rising waters would make the mission impossible, they were anxious to send a rescue helicopter for their stranded employees. They wanted to know who would give them a go-ahead.

We could not identify the agency with authority. We heard that FEMA was in charge, that the FAA was in charge, and that the military was in charge. I went in person to talk with a FEMA representative and still could not get a straight answer. Finally we told the company to avoid interfering with Coast Guard missions, but to proceed on its own. Sometimes, asking for forgiveness is better than asking for permission.

True as can be. Big Government does not work. Local efforts are far more effective. And if anything speaks to Jindal's basic American ideal it is this line...

Jeebus. So local government was too shy to act on its own, and waited until the Big Bad Feds fucked it all up? Because "Brownie your doing a heckuvajob" had no idea what to do, and thus, had no idea what to tell you to do?

Dude, if you hate the federal government, then grow a pair and act like you can take care of your own.

Seriously, the commentors at the post take no prisoners:

The Katrina story / Sherrif Lee has been found to be an exaggeration which his aides have had to walk back.

The point of the Katrina story is your "rugged individualism" and "government doesn't work". But who is the hero of the story? Sherrif Lee - a government official. Who is the villian? A FEMA bureaucrat. So the story is really about competance vs. incompetence. So it ends up reinforcing a Democratic meme.

and:

Jindal demonstrated that he does not have the leadership skills to lead a conservative movement back from being irrelevant. Knowing that everything he said was going to be facted checked by literally thousands of people, his staff choose to lie. So either Jindal picked a bad staff and thus has bad management skills or he is not capable of getting good work out of his staff.

and:

This is so off base that it is so laughable. FEMA was gutted by Bush and put in Homeland security. Many experienced people lost their jobs in the process. You had Brown who was in charge, someone who did not know emergency management. You had a video conference with Bush, Brown, and others talking about the hurricane before it struck. And then after it hit, you had a governor and a mayor who were incompetent. But you also had an incompetent FEMA. And after some three days of people screaming, Bush said "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." That is one of many blunders by Bush and company.

and:

A recent thread turned to memories of Reagan. People need reminding that he was a pathological liar. He made up the welfare queen story. It got to the point that his people didn't bother with "clarifications" and reporters didn't bother repeating them. It just was who he was. Bush also had an "interesting" relationship with the truth.

Now, talkingpointsmemo.com has the goods on Jindal. The Sheriff Lee story is a Reaganisque fib. That makes Jindal the future of the Republican party.

Seriously. Republicans, Jindal, the future of the party. It is to laugh.

That said, never assume anything. This guy, with the vast machine available to him, might make some actual noise in a few years. Or he might land a high-profile gig with Fox News or on a radio network next to Limbaugh, Liddy or North.

His clown skills may actually pay off.

If you want it, here it is Come and get it

I don't usually link to big-time bloggers everyone reads because, well, everyone reads them. But in this case Atrios says it best:

But one day I hope this country grows up and recognizes that the fear that maybe someone is getting something I'm not and they don't deserve shouldn't be the primary philosophy of governance.

Indeed. The pure selfish greed of right-wingers is to be hated, but can be understood. But the continuing voting against self-interest because that guy over there may be getting something I'm not is really a mental affliction. Sadly, one that is too common.

And we'll drive all the way to reno on the wrong side of the road

(Tom Waits-Wrong Side of the Road, + more)

Thoughtful, reasonable Rick Moran at RightWingNutHouse steps in shit, and thinks it smells fine. He lists parts of the Stimulus Bill that will, you know, create jobs, and market spending, and has this to offer:

Again, for dimwitted lefties who may be lurking out there, some of this spending is no doubt needed – but has absolutely no business being attached to this bill. Why can’t some of these programs be funded through normal legislative channels? Because the whole Congress knows they would never be able to spend the amounts earmarked in this stimulus package or even pass some of these spending provisions at all unless we had a president out there deliberately and cynically ginning up fear in order to scare people and thus justifying its passage as a result of a national emergency.

Let's examine this quote:

unless we had a president out there deliberately and cynically ginning up fear in order to scare people and thus justifying its passage as a result of a national emergency

Um, yeah. See, your guy did that with Iraq, when no sane person, upon examining empirical evidence, would have felt that it was a threat to the US, and its security.

But now, with Wall St. crashing and burning, with massive lay-offs and loss of health care for many Americans, does he fret that the stimulus bill is a great big wank.

I'm not going to waste my time linking to the economists, to the WSJ articles listing the EPIC FAIL of the US economy. If Rick wants to politicize the Bailout, so be it.

But let me explain something really simple:

Dude, it was your team that got us here. They were traded off to Triple-A ball. Outsourced. Let go. Layed off. The American people, sheep though they often are, became, at long last, tired of being pissed on while told it was raining.

Idiot.

(Buzz)Flash - a-ah - he'll save everyone of us

Update I below.
Bump & Update II by The Sailor below.



I've been a fan of BuzzFlash for years. Editor Mark Karlin scours news sources worldwide, linking to divergent sources, exposing right-wing hypocrisy and failed policy. He's even linked to us a few times.

Today Mark has a wonderful editorial that is a must-read:

I have a modest proposal: if a U.S. Senator votes against the "Main Street Job Creation Act" (BuzzFlash's name for the "stimulus" bill), their state should lose half the funding from the bill. If both U.S. Senators from one state vote against the bill, the state loses its entire allocation from the legislation.

This may sound Draconian, but it might induce the people out of work and with piles of bills to tar and feather the "economic kamikazee" Republican Senators who got America into this mess -- and to run them out of the country.

After all, most of the GOP Neo-Confederate opposition to the "Main Street Job Creation Act" comes from Senators who represent states that already receive more money from the federal government than they pay into the treasury. With the exception of Florida, most of the Old South is still poorer than most of the rest of the nation, and needs massive federal aid to survive economically.

Read it all.

Of course, Huckleberry Graham is the first Senator whose state should lose its funding:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been one of Congress’s most vocal opponents of the economic recovery package. In fact, he and several other Republicans — including John McCain — introduced an alternative bill, which focuses mostly on massive tax breaks for corporations.

Yesterday he went on CNN to explain why he voted against the Senate’s economic recovery package. While many progressives criticized the bill because it slashed vital funding for education and state assistance, Graham is objecting because it has too much state funding:

BLITZER: Doesn’t South Carolina need some help?

GRAHAM: Yes. But there’s only one taxpayer. This is not money we found under a tree in Washington. The money we’re sending back to the states came out of the same wallet that the money going to the states came from. So, yes, South Carolina needs help. I’m all for infrastructure spending. But it’s got to be shovel ready. […]

I’m not for $75 billion slush fund for states that can be spent on anything they want to spend it on including budget problems because we’ve got our own budget problems and you’re rewarding states who have done very little to trim up their own budget.

However, when Blitzer asked him whether South Carolina should “take the money, Graham replied: “I think that, yes, from my point of view, I — you don’t want to be crazy here. I mean, if there’s going to be money on the table that will help my state, but I’ve got a job to do up here, and that is to try to help people and not damn the next generation.” Watch it:

And in a non-related topic, Graham should lose his closet-case status.

Bastard.

Update & correction: It's not just Mark, but his entire fearless, tireless staff who provide all those links. Go support them. Please.

Update II: ThinkProgress notes some of the Republicans who voted against the bill but are trying to take credit for it:

– Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) slammed President Obama’s recovery and reinvestment plan. “Hold on to your wallets folks because with the passage of this trillion-dollar baby the Democrats will be poised to spend as much as $3 trillion in your tax dollars,” Bond said. “Unfortunately, this bill stimulates the debt, it stimulates the growth of government, but it doesn’t stimulate jobs,” Bond insisted.

However, today Bond is touring Missouri to tout the very stimulus plan he railed against. In a press release, Bond boasted about an amendment he included in the bill to provide more funding for affordable housing — and that will create jobs:
[...]
This provision will have a real impact in Missouri, especially for low-income, working families in need of safe and affordable housing. … Bond’s amendment will save more than 700 housing units and create 3,000 new jobs in Missouri.

– Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who complained that the “federal government is spending money they don’t have,” told Rachel Maddow he would nevertheless accept funds for Minnesota: “Our view is, if you buy the pizza, it’s OK if you have a slice.”

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also campaigned ardently against the bill, said he would nevertheless gladly accept its funds for his state. “You don’t want to be crazy here,” he said.

– Rep. John Mica (R-FL) gushed over the bill, which he, too, voted against. “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future,” he said in a press release.

– Rep. Don Young (R-AK) boasted that he “won a victory for…Alaska small business owners” in the recovery bill he refused to vote for.

– Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) boasted about the educational benefits of the recovery act

– Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) said his office "will do what we can to direct as much money as we can." Neither voted for the bill.

– Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) joins in, praising the stimulus' "generous" incentives for home buyers on his Twitter feed:

petehoekstra If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time.Stimulus incentive is very generous!Up to 8k!Check it out.

– Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) to the growing list. After insisting last Friday that the recovery bill "would have exploded our national debt without providing meaningful job growth," Lance toured construction sites in his district yesterday, touting funds that would come from the stimulus bill. "This is a classic example of a "shovel-ready' project," Lance said after the tour.

Television rules the nation

Press conference I'd like Pres. Obama to have:

In the spirit of bi-partisanship, I invited the Senate and congressional Republican leadership to meet with me and my advisors to discuss the stimulus bill we submitted. We had coffee, diet Coke, and some pleasant salty snacks. The discussion was cordial, and I even added some tax cuts the Republicans asked for, in an effort to include at least a tiny bit of their failed policies.

That said, the vote yesterday was largely along party lines, and not one Republican voted for the bill. That, surprisingly, was the first time in my memory that Republicans voted against a tax cut. I knew this was likely, and I wanted to prove to the American people that the Republicans, at long last, have no true core principles except to be obstructionists and enrich their wealthy supporters.

In fact, the new RNC chair, Rush Limbaugh, has called publicly for my failure as your President, and by extension the failure of America.

Now that the true face of the Republican Party has been exposed, I plan to have nothing further to do with these asshat motherfuckers, and not one of those bastards will ever be invited to my White House again. Unless they apologize to me and the American people, those cocksuckers can stick their heads up each others asses, rot in the sun, and die.

Thank you, and God bless America.

One can only dream.

Take this job and shove it-Update

Bump & update: The Senate voted 72-23 Thursday afternoon to proceed to the bill. This is a good thing. Be proud, Democrats and Progressives.

Also, to show the awfulness of Alito:

President-elect Barack Obama paid a visit Wednesday to the Supreme Court and chatted in front of a fireplace with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a fellow Harvard law graduate whose confirmation he opposed three years ago.

. . . Wednesday's meeting was described as a relaxed, get-acquainted session. It included Roberts, seven associate justices and Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

The absence of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who was at the court Wednesday morning for arguments in two cases, was a mystery. He has, however, voiced lingering anger over Senate Democrats, including Obama and Biden, who voted against his confirmation three years ago. When walking on Capitol Hill, Alito has said, he crosses to the far side of the street whenever he nears the Senate Office Building.

Great. We have a fucking petulant adolescent on the Supreme Court. Judicial temperament my ass. This prick has the temperament of a shunned Heather, still willing to lash out at classmates who called her geeky. Reminds me of the slut-monkeys in Carrie who trashed and humiliated her. Difference here is Alito deserved to be trashed and humiliated.

While I don't believe Obama has Carrie-like powers, still, I hope he realizes that Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia are self-important Right-wing ideologues, who have no, none, never not any chance of being rehabilitated.

They are broken men.


(Take This Job and Shove It-Johnny Paycheck)

Remember the name Lilly Ledbetter? She's the woman the Supreme Court royally screwed in 2007, when Injustice Sam Alito ruled that it was completely OK for an employer to illegally discriminate against an employee, as long as the employer keeps the discrimination secret for 180 days:

Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that employers are protected from lawsuits over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more.

This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where "disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period." In rejecting Ledbetter's appeal, the Supreme Court said that "she could have, and should have, sued" when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period.

She might have sued except that she DIDN'T FREAKING KNOW! So as long as the employer keeps a successful secret, the employee is screwed. Republican values at work again. Of course, Ms. Ledbetter, being a woman, probably shouldn't have even been working at all.

Thankfully, Sen Pat Leahy (D-VT) has started a movement to fix this awful problem, and the details are at the Equal Pay for Equal Work website:

American women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. In the year 2009, that's downright shameful.

That's why I am joining several of my colleagues in the Senate to introduce the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 2009, to protect women from discrimination in the workplace. But this common-sense legislation faces considerable opposition from some of my colleagues -- and a likely filibuster attempt -- so I urgently need your help to ensure it passes when it comes before the Senate on Thursday.

Please stand up for the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by forwarding this message to your Senators, urging them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009!

Thank you for taking action.

Indeed. Please click through and use the tools there; you can send an email to your Senators, and you can copy and paste the letter and send to other politicians, especially your representatives. This ruling by the Supremes is unconscionable to any normal person. It makes perfect sense to conservatives, who want to keep things the same:

• No justice for "them"
• No voting for that gender.
• No marriage rights for "them".
  
• No rights for anyone but "us".

Bastards.

I read it in a magazine, oh oh . . .

And Joe the Wanker files his first report from the safety of Israel War Zone as a gen-u-wine corresponderant, er, I mean, reporterer, ah heck, he'll be one when he gets to pronounciate the names right:

Right.

Well, his first report as a journamilist, with a microphone, in front of a camera, on location, like a media correspondent, is an Epic Fail. Brandon Friedman from Vetvoice.com:

Please, God, let Joe keep representing the voice of conservative American media in war zones around the world. Here's a direct quote from Joe--who's currently reporting from just outside Gaza:

I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you're gonna sit there and say, 'Well look at this atrocity,' well you don't know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it."

The video:




This guy gives Spinal Tap legitimacy. He raises Custer to true hero status. He makes Mickey Roarke look like a great acto . . . oh, forget that last.

Still, the irony is clearly lost on this idiot.

And the Right-wing bloggers who sent this tool to "report" on the war, thinking that America gives one flying fuck about his opinion? May the ghost of Palin rise up to meet you.