More of that Liberal Media Crap

Two articles of interest in today's New York Times for those of you who are still on the liberal media kick. They are up Charlie Rangel's ass with a tweaser now and show no sign of letting up. If I were ol'Charlie I would....whine like a baby about how the media are biased. Oh no, wait...that's what the right does all the live long day. Anyhoo, if I were Charles I would find a new place to live and pay what the people he supposedly represents pay (aka his fair share).

Another article discusses Senator Obama's upcoming visit to Iraq and presents several voices who (gasp!) disagree with him about troop withdrawal. In fact, the first person interviewed states unequivocally that the US should not leave. Could the Times be towing the Bush line?

Nah, can't be.

Oh, and by the way, why is it the voices on the left are much quieter in their whining about conservative media?

Liberal Media Watch

Every time I see a story or stories which prove that the media is far from liberal and interested in selling whatever their corporate owned asses are peddling, I am going to start pointing it out. Starting fucking today...which is why you see, at the bottom of this post, tags appearing for the first time. Anyone who does a search for liberal media might be pointed here. From now on, all of you can consider this a repository of information that proves how bullshit the claim is that the media is liberal. Please tell your friends...

Anyway, let's take a look at the New York Times, as an example. Called the "Traitor Times" by many on the right, this is the same newspaper that sat on the wiretap story for a year...a fucking year!...because they were too afraid of Dick Cheney. This is the same newspaper whose reporter, Judith Miller, went to jail because she wouldn't reveal who in the Bush Administration was leaking information about undercover CIA agents.

Now we see they have hired Bill Kristol to be a columnist. And last week they ran a series on Charlie Rangel and his palatial apartment set up. Are there still people out there who consider the New York Times liberal? If so, what is the matter with you?

But the real icing on the cake was the latest issue of the New Yorker. Check out this cover.

Um...what do you think they were trying to accomplish with this cover? Could it be they wanted to.....SELL SOME SHIT?

Once again, I feel totally vindicated. The editors of the magazine say they were trying to lampoon the right's view of the Obamas but it doesn't take a genius to figure out they were just trying to boost sales and raise advertising rates in a struggling economy.

They are pandering, as most members of the media do, to the lowest common denominator, encouraging a tabloid culture whose members exist only on the most paranoid and superficial levels of emotional intelligence.

I see example of this crap everyday and wonder..how does this favor liberal views...exactly?

Morning Chuckle

I opened up my copy of the Strib today and saw something that made me laugh so hard I almost went to Methodist for oxygen. A letter from a reader regarding Rush Limbaugh's new contract with Clear Channel had the following line in it:

Radio shows such as Rush's are the only place that conservatives can get the whole picture. We certainly can't get it from the liberal news media...with the state of Public Radio and Air America, I'm wondering if it isn't just plain jealousy that is causing the complaints.

Putting aside the fallacy of the liberal news media (more on that tomorrow), um..."the whole picture?"

BWAA HAH HA HA BWA HAH HAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try a PERFECT picture of propaganda. This is just another example of how conservatives can't process new information (see actual scientific proof) and have to go to a source that tells them what they want and need to here. This also proves how Rush's listeners aren't seeking entertainment but what they feel is news. I wonder if this letter writer, and others who feel like him, understand that Clear Channel pays people like Limbaugh to make sure that their corporate interests...Republican interests....are met in Washington. Now that I think about it, this would also be an example of how US Corporations, not the government, are the ones that are really running the show.

I will give him Air America, though. No doubt that has a liberal bias.

But Public Radio? Nope. Just because they report something you don't like, something that is culturally diverse, or something that is from another culture's point of view (see: white fear, paranoia, and insecurity) doesn't make it "liberal." Often dry and even sometimes boring is NPR but liberal?

Well, I suppose when you see enemies around every corner....

Whither Phil and Jesse...

As I have stated many times on this blog, we are in a new era of politics. The rules are different, folks, and many of you, on both the left and the right, don't get it. The American people have had quite enough of the bullshit, thank you very much, and expect more out of their candidates. We have finally started down the right path. Not stellar yet, but down the right path

So it really cracks me up when I see folks who still follow the old way of doing things. I offer as an example the Reverend Jesse Jackson and former Senator Phil Gramm. Jesse Jackson has become a caricature of himself. He sees enemies and "people talking down to black people" around every corner.

Note to Jesse: Barack Obama is black.

And Phil Gramm is really on the ball, isn't he? Our economic problems are all in our head, according to Phil, and we should just "get over it." This is a classic and shining example of how tone deaf conservatives have become in this election regarding what is going on this country. It will ultimately prove to be their undoing.

Jesse and Phil represent the past...the old way of doing business. Both of them look terribly out of step and foolish any time they are put in front of a microphone. And it makes my heart warm to see people recognize them for what they both are...

A joke.

Who's not listening....again?

Kori Schake, a senior policy adviser to John McCain said last week that Senator Obama was not listening the commanders on the ground in Iraq and that all of them have stated that Iraq is the central front in the war. In addition, Al Qaeda has said it is.

Well, golly shucks, Kori, let's please start listening to Al Qaeda for our foreign policy direction. Did it ever occur to you, Senator McCain or any of the other numskulls that support the occupation of Iraq that they want to distract us there while they quietly build up forces in Pakistan? Sheesh....

In actuality, no one in the McCain campaign (or most on the right) are listening to our armed forces. The Pentagon has been saying for the last year that Al Qaeda in Iraq is permanently crippled and all but vanquished. And Ms. Schake's comments came two hours after my new hero, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that additional troops were needed in Afghanistan, lamenting the fact that they were tied down in Iraq.

All of this after a huge spike in causalities in Afghanistan. Are people on the right so bent on being "right" that they can't admit that something has to change-and change now-before another serious attack?

Apparently so.

Ask and Ye Shall Receive

A reader down in comments suggested that I respond to a post by just dave from the 14 points of Fascism thread. I want to say right off the bat that I really should do this more often. There are some really great things written in comments every day and from now on, I will take the time to bring them out top more often, as is the case with the post left by just dave.

His post also touches on some things I have wanted to talk about lately so without further adieu, let's break down this little ditty and have some fun.

His first point, in a nutshell:

I extended this to corporations in my comment as well and can provide examples of fascist policies...What party, here and now, looks for that kind of control? Who wants more and more regulation on business? The control looked for by the left should simply leave one gob smacked.

The real problem dave has here is that he is operating under a false paradigm. In 2008, we are not trying to protect business from government...we are trying to protect government (which is us, btw) from business. Take a look at most members of Congress and tell me who has more power...them or the lobbyists? This is true of both Democrats and Republicans. Honestly, does dave think that the US Congress is more powerful right now than Blackwater? KBR? Haliburton? I would like him to illustrate how this might be. What him and others that post here suffer from is corporate dick envy. They view companies such as these as being the way to succeed in life which, ironically, is the exact opposite of the values they purport to represent. I equate their beliefs about corporate America to an eternal school yard crush or blind love-whichever you want.

His second point, in a nutshell:

The media angle we simply will not agree on...it doesn’t matter a lick who “owns” the stations because they’re not the ones on the air talking.... must take people like Dan Rather at their word...

Ah, the "media is liberal" argument. How much money did Rush Limbaugh just get? How long of a contract extension? What are his ratings? What about Fox News? There are plenty of conservative owned media out there with far and wide tentacles that are akin to the so called liberal media. I say so called because it does matter who owns the stations. I challenge dave or anyone else for that matter to find me a liberal on the board of GE or Viacom. Or on any board in "liberal" Hollywood. In addition, compare the media's coverage of the Vietnam war with the current one. Iraq is heavily censored and all of the big networks are told by their corporate masters to not show images that make America look bad. It's bad for business.

His Third Point, in a nutshell:

Human rights… Why didn’t you provide an example? Liberalism cheapens life with policies of abortion and euthanasia.

Really, dave? How many people have we killed in Iraq? How many of them were children? When it comes to the sanctity of life argument, you will get no respect from me as long as you continue with this glaring hypocrisy. I think you need to re-read this post and take another look at these pictures which, btw, the "liberal" media has never showed anywhere and then, please tell me who cheapens life.

As for an example on human rights abuses, how about this one? Didn't you call me "loony" a long time ago for comparing our poor human rights record, under Bush Co, with that of China? Well, I guess your pals have decided that the Chinese method of torture (from 1957!) isn't all that bad and so they stole it. Would you like another one? Chained to the ceiling of an airplane hangar for days. Awesome! That really will show those bad guys....right to bin Laden's door to happily be fitted for a vest. Or about how about another one on the subject of water boarding? And this is from a guy who supports the Iraq War. Dave, we are acting the same way they do...doesn't this bother you at all?

His Third Point, in a nutshell

Religion. We have very different reads on our own history. Seems to me the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom, not to have religion expunged from their lives. LIL already covered this in fine detail.

I would recommend that dave, and everyone else for that matter, read Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. The book describes various accounts throughout our history of how we have glorified certain people (e.g. Woodrow Wilson, Stephen Douglas) and how we don't assign blame to anything bad that we have done. It all happens anonymously. It is the most honest account of our own history, which includes religion and government, that I have ever read.

His Last Point, parceled out with commentary:

Yes, I do believe we are safer today under George Bush than we would be under Al Gore or John Kerry. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind and no way that I could be dissuaded from this fact.

Thanks for proving my point about how open minded the right is when it comes to their thought process.

Here are some facts for dave and other who believe this line of thought, to consider.

Fact #1: President Bush spent the entire month of August, 2001, on vacation. Up to 9-11, he had spent more time on vacation than any other president in that same amount of time.

Fact #2: Al Qaeda attacked us on 9-11.

Fact #3: Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahari are the heads of Al Qaeda.

Fact #4: Both are still at large, nearly 7 years after the attacks, and, according to Bush's own NIE, have rebuilt their capabilities inside of Pakistan, to carry out attacks that would rival or surpass 9-11. This same NIE said that the war in Iraq has made it easier for Al Qaeda to recruit members and train them.

Fact #5: Al Qaeda was not in Iraq before we invaded in March of 2003.

You are supporting a belief, dave, not a fact. And it is a terribly blind one. If Al Gore had spent the entire month of August 2001 on vacation,was handed a report that said "Al Qaeda determined to attack inside US," and did nothing about it, even in light of all of the previous attacks (Cole, Khobar Towers), you and I would be an agreement. As it stands, your statement proves that you are stuck in belief system that ignores key facts, like those mentioned above. Or, perhaps you can't admit when you are wrong, which would make sense because that's how Bush Co acts all the time.

The bad guys say they want to get us…the bad guys have tried to get us but have been thwarted…and the bad guys are on the defensive because we’re not waiting for them to come get us, we’re actively going after them.

No, we're not. If we were, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan (see Gary Berntsen's Jawbreaker), conducted operations inside of Pakistan, and worked with our European allies to crack down on "bad guys" in places like Holland, Denmark, and England. Who are we fighting in Iraq now, dave? The Pentagon said last fall that Al Qaeda is all but eliminated in Iraq. Honestly, what is our mission there? First, it was WMDs. OK, fine. We took care of that. Then it was Hussein. He's dead. Done with that. Then it was Al Qaeda in Iraq. They're finished. And people like you are saying that if we leave now, we will be defeated? By whom?

You seem to constantly search for enemies that aren't there and, oddly, completely ignore the ones that are there and represent a very serious threat. Why is this so?

Clinton, Kerry, Obama are all on record as favoring “talk”, policing agencies and the courts to combat terrorism which is in fact the policy that was in place pre-9/11. How else can this be said? How can it even be debated?

Clinton bombed Al Qaeda when he was in office. He almost killed bin Laden and would've if bin Laden hadn't decided to go somewhere else. Can the same be said of Bush? Both Kerry and Obama want to bomb targets inside of Pakistan. So they aren't all just about talk. But talk is important (see Bush and North Korea). Talking does not mean appeasement. This another great example of your side's Orwellian doublespeak which preys upon the fear of the unknown.

Dave's PS, in a nutshell

I'm finishing this little nugget while watching the Euro2008 Championship. Events like this are great on so many levels. I particularly enjoy the patriotism the fans show throughout the tournament by displaying their flags and singing songs. It is so striking to think that you and your followers would never be at an event like that...would never show that type of pride in their country. How very sad.

Actually, what is sad is how little you understand "me and my followers." I have been to five baseball games this year and loved singing the national anthem every single time. I love this country. I think it is the best on the planet, even with all of its faults. And the faults are the real problem, aren't they? I look at them, reflect, and wonder how can we do better. You ignore them, re-direct, and say, "Fuck you, you are a traitor". As Mark Twain once said, "I support my country all of the time and my government when they deserve it."

Once the embarrassment that is our current administration leaves office, it is my hope that more people will be proud of this country. The real problem here, dave, and I think the Cliff May/Ed Schultz exchange below exemplifies this, is that you are under the impression that your side get exclusive rights to define what is and what isn't patriotic. You, and others on the right, also think, and this really makes sense in juxtaposition with your perceived grasp of patriotism, that you get exclusive rights to define what the Bible means and, in particular, who is and who isn't a Christian.

You don't get to.

Thankfully, there is a whole country full of people out there with different views then your own. Views that are much more reflective than "There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind and no way that I could be dissuaded from this fact." These are the people that are going to restore some since of respectability to America. From now on, when it comes to defining patriotism and Christianity, you are going to have to get through them first, dave.

And me.

One final parting word of advice: I would be careful as to who you define as not having pride in their country. There are plenty of liberals that I know that won't be as nice as I have been. You see, dave, they live in "flyover" country too and they don't take too kindly to people questioning their patriotism.

But, hey, by all means, ignore what I say and please continue to do so. It just means another pile of votes for my guy!

Ed Schultz Opens Up A Can

Normally, I chuckle at all the pundits bickering with each other and I am not the biggest fan of Ed Schultz (McCain is not a war monger) but this clip is fucking money! One very good thing that has come out of the last eight years...especially the last four years...is that the left isn't going to let the right define them any more. Especially in sub moronic and immature way that Cliff May tries to do here.

I say tries because he utterly fails. I really hope the right keeps trying to do this for two reasons. First, it continues to prove that they have a child like understanding of that region of the world. Second, it gives the left a chance to show the country that every time the right pulls this shit, rather than shrinking back like frightened mice, they are going to come back heavy, like a big hard fucking horse cock.

So, please, righties, keep it up! (Pun fully intended)

A Navy Man, eh?

Regardless of who wins the election this fall, our new president is going to have some great people in the armed services to work with in our current ideological conflict. You may recall a post last November regarding General James Conway, head of the Marines and his desire to transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. After a recent trip to Pakistan earlier this month, Admiral Michael Mullen (left), the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, stated that the "epicenter of terrorism is Pakistan."

I know this doesn't jibe with the extraordinarily delusional fantasy of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and their sub moronic supporters (e.g. right wing radio cocks, most conservative bloggers, and some folks who post here) who are still trapped in the single minded belief that Iraq is our best line of defense. Thank God it doesn't and it makes me feel a whole lot better knowing that there are guys like Admiral Mullen on the job. He has also said:

"There appears to be little political progress in Iraq. " (USA Today).

"If [the Iraqis] aren't making progress in [the political] realm, the prospects for movement in a positive direction are not very good. Failure to achieve tangible progress toward [political] reconciliation requires a strategic reassessment." (testimony before Congress).

Each day, we see more and more military leaders saying that without political efforts...ideological efforts...we will not succeed. This is a hard pill to swallow...especially for the crowd that: a) does not have the intellect to understand how to do this and b) is primarily motivated by fear of the "other" and an insecurity stemming from an inability to accept any sort of diversity. We all know who I am talking about.

People like Admiral Mullen are going to be the ones who are going to assist the next president in actually doing something (possibly not a military something) about the real problem we have...the problem we have always had...which is Al Qaeda. They are in Pakistan, folks. We need to get that part of the world and get there soon...with our ideas, our hearts, and even our troops. It's time to win. It's what I have been saying all along and now I have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff backing my shit up.

Fuck Yeah.

(Sound of WWII figther being shot down...)

We have gotten to the point now where conservatives pretty much fuck up on a daily basis. It's fun to watch how stupid they look (see: American people not listening) because the same old tricks in their magic bag of bullshit don't work. They remind me of an old record album that is stuck in a groove at the end of the vinyl. We have seen how they govern and it hasn't worked. In fact, their performance has been poor. Piss poor.

On some days...and yesterday was one of them....they go that extra mile and do something really stupid. Grover Norquist, anti tax dude and one of the chief architects of neo conservatism (his Wednesday meetings are essential to the movement), dropped by the Time's Washington bureau for an interview on the election. He was giving his views on who McCain should pick for VP when he was asked what he thought about Senator Obama. He said:

"He's basically John Kerry with a tan."

Hee Hee. This is going to be more fun than I thought.

Look To The Left

On the left hand side of the page you will see a graphic which shows the latest count, based on the tracking polls, of the Presidential race, the Senate Race, and the House race. Click on it and you will go to Electoral-vote.com to see more detailed information.

This will be here until election day!

14 Lovely and Beautiful Points.

Why not make this week a fascist week? Always a fun topic. Let's take a look at what Dr Lawrence Britt, political scientist, writer, and former executive at Xerox, Mobil, and Allied Chemical, defines as his 14 points of fascism. These are based on extensive studies of Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, Indonesia, and Chile.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Again, I ask, sound like any group we know? Or any country we know...say in the past eight years?

Who is Right and who is right?

The post below once again drew a flurry of emails (I will never get why more people prefer to email then post in comments), two phone calls, and two hearty hand shakes of approval. Since the topic of who is more like Nazis, the right or the left, came up in comments, thanks to returning champ, just-dave, I thought I would present a quote from the book Teaching Social Studies in Middle and Secondary School by Candy Beal, Cheryl Mason Bolick and Peter H. Martorella.

As you read this quote, I would like you to chime in, in comments, as to who you think these words more accurately describe...liberals or conservatives, as defined by the current state of affairs in the United States.

Extreme patriotism and nationalism, however, can lead to the oppression of dissident minorities and hatred and distrust of other nations. These forces can create barriers to greater understanding across cultures and reduce the opportunities for people to to work together to achieve common goals. They can also create an exaggerated sense of superiority, as occurred in Nazi Germany. Additionally, in an era where an increasing number of nations possess nuclear weapons and unstable political leadership, excessive patriotism and nationalism can threaten the very existence of the world.

Now who does that sound like.....hmmm?

Not When They Do It!

I think I need to bring this picture out more often. Many right wing pundits (new term coming for them soon) have been attacking the education system more frequently of late and people are not seeing why this happening. It's pretty obvious.

So, I thought that on this beautiful Monday morning, I would share with you a poem that one of my colleagues recently gave to me in the hopes that an answer will come to mind as to why they are doing it.

BE DANGEROUS

My mother sat rocking in the shade of our apple tree
And reminisced about her youth,
Of her terrible days in the camps.
I sat motionless, in disbelief,
How could another people be so cruel?

I asked my mother
Why they took her to the camps? She was but fourteen.
She rocked thoughtfully for awhile....
Well, my child, she began,
When they took over our land,
They came looking for the politicians and their families,
They came looking for the soldiers and their families,
They came looking for the policemen and their families,
They came looking for the teachers and their families.
My blood pumped hard echoing in disbelief,
The teachers......the teachers..........the teachers.
The hair on the back of my neck stood up, as stunned as I.

I asked my mother
Why the teachers? They are people of peace.
She rocked thoughtfully for awhile.....
Well my child, she began,
When they take over any land,
They come looking for the teachers because teachers are dangerous people.
Teachers cause children to think, to dream, to hope.
Teachers reveal history and new ideas.
Teachers bring a society to reading and writing.
Teachers cause children to question and teachers inspire action.
Teachers are dangerous people.

I asked my mother
What I should do? I am a teacher.
She rocked thoughtfully for awhile....
Well my child she began,
I know this is difficult to understand,
For in Canada, teachers do not understand their power,
For in Canada, teachers are always embattled,
Made to see themselves as less than important.
But, because this is Canada, you must continue to be a teacher.
You, the teacher, are freedom's greatest hope......be dangerous.

Holy....crap

Just bopped over to Electoral-Vote. Com to check in on the latest polls. Wow. I knew Obama would get a bump for being the nominee but I had no idea it would be 344 to 194! Say what you will about polls and how they don't matter in June...it's still 5 months out...blah blah....but the campaigns read them every day and make adjustments based on what they say.

Someone is campaign is shitting pick Twinkies....

Calling All Ostriches

For those of you who still think that the war in Iraq couldn't possibly be about corporate thievery I submit this article and this article from the New York Times.

The first article tells the story of one Charles M Smith, the senior civilian overseeing the multibillion-dollar contract with KBR during the first two years of the war. He was fired because he refused to sign off on a billion dollars of "questionable" money that KBR charged to the US government. After he was fired, the money was gladly handed over. Gosh, what a shock.

The second article details the other half of why we went to War in Iraq...oil. ExxonMobil, Total, Shell, and BP are all set to take their no bid contracts on June 30th and begin to service the oil wells in Iraq. And there are still people out there that deride those like myself who think oil had anything to do with it?

I'm curious as to what the earth looks like with so many heads buried so deeply in it. Well, I'm sure they'll convince themselves that none of it could be true because it came from the "Traitor" Times. Maybe they should keep on thinking that and, in the meantime, I will be gently preparing their beds in the new asylum of cognitive dissonance they are going to enter in about seven months.

This Is Wonderful

When I first saw this, I laughed for...oh...about an hour. Then I thought, well, this is an exaggeration. They aren't really like this. Then I watched it again and thought....fucking a right they are! It's time to start admitting the obvious:

Shit smells.

Who Is The Real Tax Man?

I got this graphic, at lleft, courtesy of Robo Cam Guy, who I just saw in St Louis. Unless you make over 2.9 million a year, why on earth would you vote for John McCain? Or any of the antiquated trickle down Republicans?

I know several of you that fall into the first category that are steadfastly Republican. So...you want to pay more in taxes then?

A Welcome Homecoming

I came home tonight from weekend trip and found this sitting in my email box. It is an article from the Huffington Post regarding War Inc., the new film from John Cusack. It warmed my heart to read the following responses that John got regarding his film.

From Sgt. Brent Sammann (left), an active-duty soldier in the US Army:

I'm a first-hand witness to the exploitation by KBR and other companies lending their services to the war effort -- services us soldiers are fully capable of doing ourselves.... The military is being overcharged by these companies on a regular basis. Also, the poor service and treatment we get from some of their employees who make three times as much as those of us serving our country that are not in it for the money but are trying to make the world a better place for everyone.

From SPC (P) Johnny Rhodes in 3/2 SCR Infantry based in Diyala, Iraq:

After being awake for 3 days I may be a little bit out of it, so excuse any rambling or incoherence on my part. Off the top of my head, I can easily say that KBR in particular is of no help here in my area of Iraq. They do, jobs soldiers could do, get paid way better for it, but the work is almost always substandard.... at any given time there are hordes of these guys tying up the phones and internet, cramming the chow hall, etc. Which makes the soldiers have to wait. And wait. And wait. They also paid way more than me, for a job, I could do with my eyes closed.

From Brenda Clampitt, of Baton Rouge, LA, the wife of a soldier stationed at Camp Adder in Tallil, Iraq:

[My husband] drives the trucks and Humvees and escorts the KBR around where they need to go. He doesn't understand why they get paid way more then he does when [he and his fellow soldiers] are the ones doing the protecting, and are the ones getting shot at and blown up. He has seen soldiers die in front of him; he has seen lives destroyed and the country torn apart. My husband would serve his country whether he got paid or not, that is just how he is. He loves his country and wants to protect it but he sees first hand what is going on over there and he doesn't like it.... I myself am sick and tired of this war. It is dragging on and on and it is all about the money. I am not anti war. But I am FOR everything your movie is about.

The article also references a column in today's New York Times regarding the outsourcing of interrogation to private contractors (??!!?). I have a column coming soon on interrogation. I need to let it simmer a little while longer.

So, based on these quotes, would anyone of you "I just hate Bush" folks want to tell me, now that soldiers are starting to come forward, that there ISN'T any profiteering going on? Or maybe you could tell me what else you need-evidence wise?

Hypocrisy Defned

For those of you who are interested in the purest example of hypocrisy in the history of mankind, check out Kevin Baker' latest posts regarding the Gimto Supreme Court case, Boumediene vs. Bush. As is the norm with folks on the right, rather than putting the blame squarely on the people he supports in Washington (Bush Co) for causing the problem to begin with, he accuses the 5 judges who voted in favor of detainee rights of being activist judges (snore...).

This case would have never happened if our current leaders in the executive branch decided we could hold people without trial and torture the shit out of them. I find it hilarious that the "less government" crowd supports this. Kevin and company have been screeching in fear that a President Obama would create a fascist government with totalitarian control over its people.

Um....dumb assess.....it's already here and you are the biggest cheerleaders of it!!! And they accuse me of having a blind belief system? Good Lord....

Almost as funny is the arrogance that they FEEL that they know more about the Constitution than 5 Supreme Court justices and can't see the political bias of the Bush appointees, Roberts and Alito.

But the real kicker is the quote that Kevin has on the top of his page.....in the banner which defines his site!!!

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand

Well, I guess if the shoe fits....

Obama is Pro-Life?

Great article today in the Huffington Post on how Barack Obama is the real Pro Life candidate. Since we all like stats...

Obama could remind the voter that only 11% of sexually active women don't use contraception and from this 11% comes 50 percent of the nation's abortions. Ninety-three percent of the American public strongly favors contraception because of this very reason. Very few voters are aware, however, that not one pro-life organization in the United States supports contraception. Or that instead, pro-life groups have been spearheading campaigns to prevent Americans from accessing birth control. No less than 80% of self-described pro life voters strongly support contraception . Few know that McCain has a long legislative resume devoted to voting against access to contraception and prevention.

So, how does John McCain plan on reducing the number of abortions in the US?