THE.personal.IS.political

Impeachment, Will We Have Accountability Or Do The Laws No Longer Apply?

2008-07-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

Watch the Judiciary Committee (non-impeachment hearing) hearing on impeaching Bush on C-SPAN, because you aren't going to see a mention of this in the news. Go here to watch it online, it is good stuff.

Update (12:40 PM ET): Right now there is a crazy law professor named Jeremy Rabkin ranting about how Bush's impeachable offensives shouldn't lead to impeachment, not because they weren't illegal or didn't break the Constitution, but because other presidents have broken the law in the past during war time. Yes, because we locked up Japanese Americans during WWII, which is now nearly unanimously seen as extremely anti-democratic, and unconstitutional, Bush and any other president can do whatever they want as long as they do it during "wartime" (like the never-ending, never-defined, omnipresent "war on terror"). The guy is a complete nut, and you could tell he was a nut, because he reacted to the sane witnesses as if they were crazy. It was something to behold.

Norm Coleman Attacks Jokes, Because He Has Nothing Else

2008-07-25T08:14:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator Norm Coleman is facing a tough reelection battle this year from former comedian Al Franken. Now Minnesota is a progressive state, very blue, and Al Franken is a perfect fit. The only reason Coleman was elected is because the Democratic incumbent, Senator Paul Wellstone, a great Senator, tragically died in a plane crash just days before the election. Now it is our chance to take Paul's seat back, and Al Franken is just the person to do it. However Norm Coleman, like all Republicans, is unable to have a debate on the issues, because he supports bad policies, he is on the wrong side of the issues, especially in a state like Minnesota. So Coleman has been digging through every joke Al Franken ever told, and is trying to smear Franken by bringing up jokes from years ago that were just that, JOKES. It is a transparent attempt to keep the attention off his record. Here is Al Franken's response, which I think is right on the money:

He needs to keep this up. Every time Coleman comes out with a ridiculous attack on Franken's past career, Franken should come back with something like this:

I believe Minnesotans know the difference between comedy and politics, and they can see through the same old tired 'gotcha' politics that seeks to distract them from the real issues that affect them every day. Norm Coleman supports the same policies that have been hurting America for the last 8 years, and now he doesn't want the voters to focus on what is best for America, and Minnesota.

Go to Al Franken's website to help his campaign (and donate if you can), because this race is closer than it should be, and we need to fight for this seat.

T. Boone Pickens: Hypocrite

2008-07-25T04:54:00.000-07:00

This has been bothering me for awhile, and I just saw it again, so I'm just going to quickly vent. Have you seen T. Boone Pickens and his commercial for his "Pickens' Plan"?:

This is my favorite line:

"We don't need anymore talk, we need action, and a plan. And it's got to be the top priority of the next president and the next Congress."

Why is this funny? Well, for that you have to know a little bit more about T. Boone. T. Boone is a Republican. T. Boone was a big supporter of Reagan. T. Boone was a big financial backer of none other than George W. Bush. Not only that, T. Boone helped fun the Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth", which "swiftboated" Kerry, and are typically attributed with winning the 2004 election for Bush. He also offered a $1 million reward for anyone who could prove the swiftboaters had lied about Kerry, which Kerry took him up on, and then T. Boone reneged on that offer.

So seriously? We are getting lectured on energy policy by someone who helped Bush "beat" Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004? We are seriously getting a lecture from someone who supported the worst president for the environment in history, someone who has obstructed any and every attempt to fight climate change, and someone who has repeatedly muzzled NASA's climate scientists because what they had to say conflicted with what the oil companies wanted?? Is this for real? Hey T. Boone, if you REALLY care at all about the environment or energy independence, a small forest of wind power plants are nice, but do you know what is even nicer? NOT SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO FIGHTING EVERYTHING YOU PROFESS TO STAND FOR!! Yes, this means Republicans. "We don't need anymore talk, we need action, and a plan. And it's got to be the top priority of the next president and the next Congress." Talk about a hypocrite.

And has he learned anything since he supported Bush in 2004? Not likely. Pickens was on the executive committee of Rudy Giuliani's Presidential Committee. Even after four decades of supporting the party that has made fighting the environment a centerpiece of its mission, T. Boone can't seem to get enough, even though if he were serious about this being the "top priority", he clearly would need to support a Democrat. This is why Pickens is either a complete fake, or a complete idiot. I'm betting on fake. The guy is a big supporter of natural gas, and talks more about independence from foreign oil than renewable resources. My bet is he is trying to greenwash his activities with some wind turbines, just like all the big oil companies are doing now as well. Pay lip service to climate change, say you are part of the solution, and then continue to pursue policies, or help elect people, that will continue to put profit over the environment. Let's start a countdown to him starting to push offshore drilling.

The bottom line: You can't separate politics from anything, especially climate change and energy policy. Don't pretend you want change, and then turn around and support the exact same party that has been responsible for the problems are you complaining about. You are either a fool, or you take everyone else for fools.

Obama's Berlin Speech

2008-07-24T19:14:00.000-07:00

Here is Obama's speech from Berlin, Germany today, which was attended by nearly a quarter million adoring Europeans:

Transcript here.

There can be no doubt that worldwide there is one clear choice for the next US president, and that is Barack Obama. Just look at the polls, keeping a close eye on how many want McCain:

United Kingdom: Obama 60%, McCain 15%

Germany: Obama 62%, McCain 10%

France: Obama 64%, McCain 4%

And its not just Europe. In fact I don't know of a single country in the world where more people who choose McCain over Obama. Israel you ask? Nope, Israelis support Obama over McCain too. And this isn't meaningless, because this gives us a good look at who could best improve the image of the United States abroad. One of the countless horrible things the Bush administration will hand off to the next president is the tarnished reputation of our country abroad, a reputation that Bush spent almost every day of his presidency seemingly working hard to destroy, and he did a great job. This isn't just about popularity, we need the world to like us to make us safer. You want to talk about terrorism? Terrorism is a tactic, and it is not irrational. Terrorism is fueled by hate, hate for America. It isn't hate for our people or our culture, and it certainly isn't hate for our "freedom" or "democracy", it is hate directed at our policies, our greed, our meddling and our neoimperialism.

In Obama the world sees the hope and promise of a new direction, and by choosing Obama as president Americans would be starting a new chapter in America's relationship with the rest of the world on the best possible foot. The other choice, starting on the worst possible foot, essentially a third term of Bush, which the world, perhaps better than Americans, correctly sees McCain as representing. I think when Obama is president, Americans will start to see how much greener the grass is where the United States isn't viewed negatively, and that we can achieve so much more through cooperation and diplomacy. The media never discusses it, but we lose so much by our aggressive and untrusting posture toward the international community, especially the United Nations. We've tried it the Republican way for decades, and life sucks on this side of the tracks. It's time for change.

Update: This is pretty sad, for McCain. Even in the US there is a big enthusiasm gap. According to a new Associated Press poll, over Four times as many Obama supporters are excited about the election than McCain supporters. Twice as many of Obama's supporters say they are hopeful about the campaign. And Obama's supporters are three times likelier to express pride in their candidate than McCain's supporters. Ouch. And that is in the US. Hell, why should we be surprised that people overseas don't like him, when some polls have McCain LOSING in his HOME STATE? Talk about embarrassing.

McCain Wrong On The Surge, But Aren't We Missing The Point?

2008-07-24T12:59:00.000-07:00

More "Surge" distortions from McCain. While he was in the midst of lying about the timeline of the so-called "Anbar Awakening" and the Surge (McCain claimed the Surge led to the Anbar Awakening, even though the Awakening began long before the Surge), he claimed that:

Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening.

And then:

The Arizona Republican's campaign went further the next day, claiming that the major figures that turned around Anbar province would have been killed had the surge policy not been in place. "If Barack Obama had had his way, the Sheiks who started the Awakening would have been murdered at the hands of al Qaeda,"

Only, the most notable of those figures, the Awakening's founder Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated in September 2007, at the height of the Surge. So much for the "protection" of the Surge, and how Obama's policy would have resulted in their murder.

Oh, and while we are looking retrospectively at "what ifs" concerning who made the right decisions in the past, why stop at the Surge? Why don't we go back to a far more important choice, like invading the country in the first place looking for nonexistent WMDs? Hmmm...help me remember...who opposed this devastating war in the first place...? I'm pretty sure that was...Obama! Yes, it turns out if he had followed Obama's judgment in the past we wouldn't have to worry about the "Surge" because it would have never been necessary. Also, there would be over 4,000 more Americans alive today. There would be tens of thousands of less wounded Americans today. There would be thousands fewer suicides, there would be less broken families. There would be hundreds of thousands or possibly over a million more Iraqis alive today. There would be around 4.5 million less refugees in the world today. Afghanistan wouldn't be the mess it is today. Osama bin Laden probably wouldn't be free like he is today, and al-Qaeda probably wouldn't be just as strong, or stronger, than it was before 9/11. Oil prices wouldn't be at record levels. Our deficit wouldn't have exploded to historic levels. We probably wouldn't be facing a huge recession right now. The world wouldn't hate us (nearly as much).

I could go on and on and on. The point is, does John McCain really want to play the "what if" game? Does he really want to have a debate over who ultimately has better judgment?? Because I'd love to have that debate, and I'm sure Obama would too. Why is it that the media pretends that the past doesn't matter, that only the future matters, how long we will stay in Iraq? Why is it that the ONLY time they look back is to see who was "right" or "wrong" on the Surge, when a MUCH more important question is who was right and who was wrong at the beginning, when the decision was cast to invade and occupy Iraq? The single biggest decision of the last 8 years, the single best way to draw distinctions between the judgment of the two candidates, and we pretend it is ancient history that has no relation to the current election, or our current situation in Iraq.

I'm very much against single-issue voting, but if there ever was one, this would be a great candidate. How about single-issue voting on foreign policy? Do we really need to have a debate over foreign policy when McCain and Bush were so obviously dead wrong on launching this war in the first place, while Obama was absolutely right? That settles the foreign policy debate as far as I'm concerned. Why waste so much time on it, when the last 5+ years have done nothing but proven Obama right and McCain wrong?

But really, isn't it interesting the the media NEVER discusses the logic of the initial invasion? That they NEVER question what that says about McCain's judgment? All of this chatter about what every little statement or event means about Obama's judgment or whatever, yet on the single most important question McCain flunked and no mention of it? Seriously, how can this possibly not be an issue in this campaign? Why does the media pretend the history of our involvement in Iraq started with the Surge? I'll give you a hint:

♥ Media ♥ McCain ♥

What Is Thy Bidding, My Master?

2008-07-23T12:50:00.000-07:00

“ My friends, we have to drill off shore. We have to do it. It's out there and we can do it. And we can do that. The oil executives say within a couple of years we could be seeing results from it. So why not do it?

— John McCain - July 22, 2008

Exhibit #88491 why McCain shouldn't be president. John McCain takes his energy advice directly from the rich oil executives, no questions asked. Get that? We have to drill, because the oil executives told him it was the right thing to do.

And as for the results, read this for the real story on oil drilling.

John McCain Exploits The Holocaust As A Cheap Political Attack

2008-07-23T07:56:00.001-07:00

Oh. My. God.

Today McCain has stooped to a new low, that is even shocking to those used to his typical Republican smearmongernig. Today John McCain jumped on Obama's words at the Holocaust Museum in Israel to score some cheap political point. How unbelievably shameless. Here was what Obama said at Yad Vashem:

"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

Here's more:

At the Holocaust memorial, Obama wore a white skullcap as he laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the Nazis.

Later, he said: "I am always taken back to sort of the core question of humanity that the Holocaust raises. That is, on the one hand, man's great capacity for evil, and on the other hand, our ability to come together to stop evil."

He added, "So despite this record of monumental tragedy this ultimately is a place of hope because it reminds us of our obligations and responsibilities hopefully to raise a better future for our children and our grandchildren." He said he hoped he could bring his two young daughters with him on his next trip.

In signing the guestbook, he wrote, "May we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit."

So we have Obama at Israel's Holocaust Museum, solemnly speaking to the great loss during the Holocaust, and how humanity has a moral imperative to make sure those crimes against humanity are never repeated.

John McCain apparently saw this as something that needs to be politicized, and perverted into some cynical partisan attack. McCain tried to accuse Obama of "flip-flopping" on preventing genocide! Seriously! He attacked Obama because in responding to a question in 2007 about whether the US military should be used to prevent a "potential genocide" in Iraq, Obama responded:

Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done.

In response to this, as if this even deserves a response, I have just two points. First, this was based on a hypothetical situation in which there was some threat of "potential genocide" in Iraq, which there absolutely is not, and no one has claimed there to be any threat of genocide occurring there. Furthermore, US troops have been absolutely powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing all around the country, especially in Baghdad, which contributed greatly to the massive refugee crisis in Iraq, leaving around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees either displaced internally or in neighboring countries. That was with over a hundred thousand US troops on the ground. The number of troops on the ground isn't the problem here.

That leads to my second point, which is that "preventing possible genocide" is a false excuse to remain in Iraq, and that was precisely Obama's point. He was simply noting the double-standard of saying we need to stay in Iraq to "prevent a possible genocide" (that doesn't exist and isn't in danger of occurring), when the US isn't doing a damn thing about ACTUAL genocide which IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan. Seriously, it is an asinine proposition that we are in Iraq because of "humanitarian" reasons, when the US has a great track record of ignoring genocide, and this isn't even a case of genocide.

So, simply put, Obama spoke some empathetic and solemn words about the meaning of the Holocaust to humanity, and McCain jumped on it in the most shameless and cynical way possible by distorting Obama's (very accurate and legitimate) comments on a completely different subject and using the occasion to inject political smears into remembering the Holocaust and the very serious topic of genocide.

To say nothing of that fact that McCain is essentially saying Obama would let another Holocaust happen, which is an incredibly offensive and reprehensible accusation, no matter the context, and has absolutely no place in politics, let alone from a presidential candidate. Shameless.

Oh yes, and let's recall what Cindy McCain promised on the Today Show in May:

There are clear differences in this race between whatever candidates wind up against each other. That's the beauty of this race. What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.

Really Cindy? Look at your husband now, who just used the Holocaust to attack his opponent. Is that not negative?? Furthermore, is that a great debate? Is that an honest discussion of the issues that matter to Americans? Is this what Americans deserve in this election??

Shameless.

Update: I should also point out that Samantha Power, the Harvard professor, Pulitzer-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" and outspoken proponent of humanitarian intervention was singled out by Obama to join his campaign after he read her book, because he wanted someone with her values, opinions and expertise advising him on this very topic. To suggest that Obama is opposed to preventing genocide is to have no idea what Obama stands for.

Update #2: And as usual, it is only a matter of time after McCain attacks Obama that his hypocrisy floats to the surface, and this is no exception. Here is McCain back in 1994, talking about the ACTUAL genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and how we shouldn't intervene:

I think it's unacceptable, the situation in Rwanda today. I think that it's unacceptable that in Bosnia there's ethnic cleansing going on. I find it unacceptable in many other parts of the world, terrible things that are happening, but it doesn't mean that we use military force to rectify the situation

Nice John, you are utterly shameless, and a gigantic hypocrite on top of that.

And here are pictures of Obama paying his respects at Yad Vashem:

McCain Screws Up More Facts About Iraq, And CBS Covers It Up

2008-07-22T18:53:00.000-07:00

Ohhh I love Keith Olbermann, and I love how ignorant (or pathological) McCain is, because they provide entertainment like this:

Yes, McCain gets ANOTHER basic fact about the situation in Iraq wrong, WHILE attacking Obama and accusing him of not knowing what he is talking about! Yes, and these facts he can't get right are about the Surge, the very thing that has been the centerpiece of his foreign policy arguments, and he doesn't know the basics. Or, he knows he is lying. Who knows. Another reason this story is great, is because it shows the lengths CBS News went to to edit the interview and cut out McCain's lie/gaffe in order to protect him. Talk about a love affair.

Anyway, it is a great clip because Keith hits all the right questions. It is all probably a wash though, because the rest of the media (like CBS) will continue to carry McCain's water for him, and selectively report reality in order to protect McCain from the harsh reality of...reality.

Update: The Jed Report puts it together beautifully:

And here's another one, with video of McCain talking about the Anbar Awakening before the Surge, if anyone had any doubt:

The GOP Deals In Monopoly Money

2008-07-22T10:31:00.000-07:00

Hmm...it looks like there's something fishy going on over at the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and it smells like a big fillet o' liar.

Back on June 18th the Republicans made a big deal out of the $13.5 million that they raised for the NRSC at their annual fundraising dinner with Bush. They boasted that this was the most they've raised from the dinner in the last five years. They put a lot of emphasis on this money, for example this statement:

The $13.5 million we raised for the dinner shows people understand that Democrats are going to do more than just increase the price of gas.

Yet when they released their June fundraising numbers to the FEC, it turns out they only barely raised $6 million for the entire month of June. Hmmmmmmm...isn't that interesting. They try to make a big deal to the press about all their money and the "huge interest" in fighting the Democrats, and yet it turns out that this supposed $13.5 million, plus whatever they raised in the other 29 days in June, equals about $6 million. Sounds like the NRSC were lying through their teeth and talking a big game, when all along their fundraising numbers were nothing short of embarrassing, a good reflection of Bush's rock-bottom approval ratings and the 8 years of misery the Republicans have put this country through (yes, including high gas prices).

Obama Much More Popular Among Jews Than Lieberman

2008-07-22T08:05:00.000-07:00

Haha, this is wonderful. This is actually the best thing I've heard since...well, at least since the Iraqi Prime Minister endorsed Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan. According to a new poll, Obama is a hell of a lot more popular among American Jews than JOE LIEBERMAN! Yes, the traitorous, warmongering maggot himself, who has been John McCain's attack dog against Obama, attacking his commitment to Israel and his foreign policy credentials. And even though Lieberman is himself Jewish, only 37% of American Jews have a favorable view of him (48% have a negative view of him), while 60% view Obama favorably. Ouch. So much for Lieberman being McCain's gateway to the Jewish community, if anything it looks like Lieberman's support will hurt McCain.

No, I guess it has a little room to help McCain, who is only viewed favorably by 34% of Jews, while 57% have a negative view. I guess Lieberman's numbers look good in comparison. Needless to say, he is certainly no Obama.

On Meaning In Dreams

2008-07-21T18:13:00.000-07:00

This post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.

Sometimes I have dreams where I find money, specifically coins--sometimes rare coins, sometimes gold coins, sometimes foreign coins, sometimes just regular coins. It's never cash. I feel as though I have a dream like this once or twice a year. In these dreams I'm doing something, and I see a coin. I pick up the coin, and just as I do I see another, and another, and another. I keep finding coins, and I start filling my pockets. It's not in a greedy way, it just seems like an opportunity that shouldn't be passed up.

Last night I had another one of these coin dreams. I was in a car and I took a wrong turn. I got out of my car, and there was a hill, which I began to climb. Not far up, I look down and see a dime, and not being a rich person, I pick it up, and see another coin, which I in turn pick up as well. I keep doing this and keep finding more coins, all American, mostly nickels, dimes and quarters--although I distinctly remember a shiny JFK silver dollar coin, which actually doesn't exist, because JFK is only on the half-dollar, but it was there in my dream nonetheless.

So what does it all mean? Does it mean I need money? Because I do, but I've been having this dream off and on again for years, even when I haven't been especially in need.

Perhaps I just need change.

McCain Employs Parlor Tricks For The Media While Obama (And Reality) Thumps Him On Foreign Policy

2008-07-21T17:05:00.000-07:00

John McCain has been running around the media telling everyone that Maliki (and the Iraqis) endorsing Obama's withdrawal plan, and the fact that McCain has flip-flopped on Afghanistan to follow Obama's lead there, doesn't mean a thing, because according to him "the Surge has been a success." The media, dutifully nod their heads in agreement, as they hang on McCain's every word with love filled eyes.

The only problem is, the Surge hasn't worked. It hasn't worked by a long shot. Read my previous blog on this subject. Basically the drop in violence in Iraq can mostly be attributed to three things. First, "successful" ethnic cleansing in Iraq under our watch. The fighting decreased because the militias largely finished their job in killing or expelling the opposing ethnic groups from mixed neighborhoods and areas. The result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, and around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees. If that is "success", then pop the champaign, but it wasn't the doing of the Surge. Secondly, the US started buying off Sunni militias and arming them, to get them to fight against al-Qaeda. Yes, we gave our previous enemies weapons and money in exchange for their temporary support. And when they eventually want to use those weapons and that money against us, or against fellow Iraqis again, I guess that'll be written off as an "oops". But certainly that wasn't part of the Surge. Thirdly, Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr declared a unilateral cease-fire to regroup, but has always remained on the verge of returning to violence, and it is certainly able to at any time.

For more on those, read my previous blog where I outlined the non-success of the Surge. What really led me to write this post, however, was how the media is eating all of this pro-Surge nonsense up. A fellow Kossack wrote an epithet-laden diatribe against the media, specifically aimed at Andrea Mitchell, and I think it was absolutely appropriate. He or she, like many others, including myself, is absolutely sick of how absurdly biased in favor of McCain. This Kossack shares my exasperation. It is beyond ridiculous. It is insanity at this point.

Luckily not everyone on MSNBC is as incompetent, so I'd like to give kudos to Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who both hit the nail on the head on Countdown just now when reviewing how wrong McCain has been on Iraq and Afghanistan, and really how perfectly everything is falling behind Obama during his trip overseas. Keith made an excellent point when he highlighted the paradox that McCain insists that the Surge has been a success, yet we can't withdraw for years to come, even though the very goal of the Surge was to be able to leave a sovereign Iraqi government in place! He can't have it both ways, yet the vast majority of the media seems to want to let him have it both ways. Maddow quite aptly pointed out that McCain and Bush are now defining success in Iraq by us staying in Iraq, while Obama is defining success by getting out of Iraq.

Perhaps the best part was Rachel Maddow pointing out exactly what I pointed out on Saturday, that both Bush and McCain have previously committed to withdrawing our troops from Iraq when a sovereign Iraqi government tells us to leave, which is exactly what their Prime Minister just said the Iraqis wanted. I'd like to think she reads my blog, but that probably isn't very likely (psst, Rachel, leave me a blog comment if it's you!). Looking back, here was Bush:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."

And McCain:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Yeahhh....

Anyway, I'm going to watch Maddow tear McCain up on his lies about oil prices... (You see, McCain is blaming Obama for high gas prices because he doesn't support offshore drilling, never mentioning that HE didn't support it either, until his recent flip-flop, and never mentioning that every economist and even Bush acknowledges that drilling out have no effect on gas prices for many many years, and even then it would have no effect. This is a perfect example of how the mainstream media gives McCain a free pass on his absurd lies and distortions, while only a very few, like Maddow, actually set the record straight. This isn't anti-McCain or pro-Obama, it is pro-reality. Sadly most of the media is committed to expunging all reality from their reporting. Oh, and for the record McCain, the price of oil increased nearly 600% since Bush took office, after being relatively flat for decades. Now who is responsible? Furthermore, who supports the exact same policies that led to those skyrocketing oil prices? Here's a hint: It isn't Obama.)

I'll put up some video if I can find it. (Got it:)

Now THAT'S journalism (disregard Howard Fineman's fallacious conventional wisdom about the Surge "working", and once again, read my previous blog on this, because "improvements" in Iraq have next to nothing to do with the Surge). And here's some more journalism:

It is time for MSNBC to get rid of Joe Scarborough or David Gregory and give Rachel Maddow their time spot, because neither of them hold a candle to Maddow, especially Scarborough, he himself is a former Republican congressman, so it is not surprising he is nothing but a Republican shill pumping the GOP propaganda on MSNBC. In fact, be proactive, sign the petition calling for MSNBC to give Maddow her own show!

McCain vs Geography (Round Two, or Eight)

2008-07-21T08:07:00.000-07:00

I wrote this as an update to a story from a week ago, but I don't want this to get overlooked, so I'll note it here. For the THIRD time in a week, despite all of the ridicule, John McCain referred to the non-existent country of Czechoslovakia. It is unbelievable how incompetent this guy is, yet you wouldn't know it by watching the news or pundits. Anyway, read all about McCain's war on geography.

Update: On Good Morning America this morning he managed to screw up geography again! This time he referenced the non-existent Iraq-Pakistan border. Yes, those who know even a little bit about the Middle East might be aware that Iraq doesn't even come close to sharing a border with Pakistan, indeed the entirety of Iran is between them. What an idiot. And this guy is supposed to be Mr. Foreign Policy? C'mon media, enough with the crap, can we give up the charade now?

Tell Congress To Keep Toxic Chemicals Out Of Everyday Products

2008-07-20T08:41:00.000-07:00

From Consumers Union:

Potentially harmful chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) is in the blood of 93 percent of Americans aged 6 and older and enters infants through baby bottles. Studies have shown that BPA -- which is used to make plastics such as hard, clear plastic baby bottles -- may lead to breast and prostate cancer, obesity, reproductive system abnormalities and, in infants, developmental problems.

Canada has already banned BPA from baby bottles. The U.S. Congress should do the same, plus more: BPA is also found in items ranging from food packaging and water bottles to dental sealants.

From witnessing the effects of BPA in experiments, scientists believe this is a toxin the government cannot ignore. Congress needs to act to eliminate this potential health threat before it's too late. Tell Congress to ban BPA and any other potentially harmful chemical from products that serve as gateways to our bodies.

Read my previous blog on this very topic, "We Are Walking Bags of Toxic Chemicals".

You can learn a lot about the priorities of a country by whether they care more about consumer safety or corporate profits. In Canada, they care about their citizens, so they ban things like this. In the US, they care more about corporate profit than protecting their citizens, even babies, thus we have tons of toxic chemicals in our products that have been banned in Europe and Canada because they've been shown to harm people. It's all about priorities, and our country is an embarrassment. Even China (toxic waste dump), Romania and Mexico have banned this stuff. Read more about it here.

Negative Consequence Of War #844: Broken Families

2008-07-20T07:16:00.000-07:00

You know, a good way to support the troops is to not keep sending them into the war zone over and over and over again until their personal lives fall apart around them. You know, divorce, domestic violence, infidelity, PTSD, kids having nightmares, not to mention the worst-case scenario, suicide, or rather, murder-suicide. Yeah, it's just great what the Republicans are doing for the troops, heckuva job!

Iraqi Prime Minister Supports Obama's Iraq Plan, Not McCain's (Republican Strategist Says "We're Fucked")

2008-07-19T10:46:00.000-07:00

So Obama is now on his world tour, which will take him through the Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Europe, among other places. John McCain has of course been attacking Obama on the fact he hasn't been on one of these trips for two years (he has been campaigning for the presidency for one and a half years, that doesn't leave much free time). McCain asserts that Obama hasn't met with Gen. Petraeus so he can't possibly know what is going on in Iraq. This, despite the fact that Obama met with Petraeus while he was testifying before Congress a few months ago. Apparently it isn't the actual meeting with Petraeus that is important, it is the longitude and latitude of that of that meeting. Somehow meeting with him in the US yields different results than if that meeting occurred in Iraq. Perhaps Obama should also meet with him in Antarctica, because who knows what he might say there.

And of course Petraeus has his own agenda, which closely reflects Bush's agenda. After all, Petraeus has misled Congress before. And Obama has made it clear that the military doesn't shape US foreign policy, the president does, yet he will take what they say under consideration. Of course McCain seems to think that this country is ran by the military, and that by talking to the military we can understand the big picture of our foreign policy. This, of course, helps explain why McCain and Bush have been so wrong on virtually everything. Obama, it turns out, has been right again and again, from Iraq to Afghanistan to Pakistan. Yet despite this, the media buys into this false characterization of McCain as foreign policy expert, juxtaposed with Obama the neophyte. Talk about media bias. It takes quite a leap to view the person (and the party) who has been wrong about so much as the expert, and the person who has been right about so much as the newbie. But hey, that's the media for you.

So anyway, Obama is starting off his trip in Afghanistan today. And today we also got news that already one person supports his Iraq plan: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Yes, probably the only people that you need to go to Iraq to hear, the Iraqis, agree with OBAMA, and think it is best for the US to pull out sooner rather than later:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Maybe McCain should spend a little less time hanging on the every word of military leaders, and a little more time actually listening to the people who run the country we are occupying. What a crazy idea! It has been obvious for a long time that there is no military solution to Iraq. And McCain, Petraeus said that too.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget this little gem from Bush last year:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice," the president said during a Rose Garden news conference. "If they were to say 'leave', we would leave."

Hm, seems that we should be listening to what Obama has been saying, and start packing our bags.

[Update: And let's not forget this little gem from John McCain himself, it'll be fun to see him spin (flip-flop, flip-flop) his way out of this:

QUESTION: Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.

McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

Well said John, well said.]

It is almost comical how Obama is always right on these things, yet never gets credit. He is constantly being criticized by Bush and McCain. He was criticized for saying he would make surgical strikes at terrorists within the borders of Pakistan if their government is unwilling or unable to do it themselves. Yet then Bush did exactly that, and killed a high ranking al-Qaeda official. And then as violence has risen in Afghanistan, and the Taliban has made gains while al-Qaeda has continued to go free, Obama (oh, and military leaders) called for troops to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan, and McCain opposed any more troops for Afghanistan. Yet since then things have gotten worse with no new troops, and now McCain supports more troops for Afghanistan. And Obama has supported withdrawing troops from Iraq for a long time, yet Bush, McCain and the Republicans have called that "surrender" and "cutting and running" and opposed any "timelines", only now the military is sounding the same alarms as Obama has been about our military being stressed to the breaking point, and we've reached a point where we have no choice but to withdraw troops because our military simply can't handle it anymore. And of course the Iraqis agree with Obama. And now Bush and al-Maliki are discussing a "time horizon" for withdrawal of US troops. [Update: I almost forgot, Obama has said for months and months now that we should talk to foreign leaders like Ahmadinejad, the Republicans (and even Hillary) have attacked him for it relentlessly, comparing him to Nazi appeasers, and now the Bush administration is finally starting to open diplomatic channels to Tehran.] Time after time Obama has led on these issues, and been right, and McCain and Bush have followed, slowly, and grudgingly. Bush and McCain and the Republicans have been dead wrong from the beginning. And yet the media pushes this "Obama is inexperienced" nonsense, paying absolutely no attention to his vastly superior judgment. It is insanity that the same idiots that got us into this mess to begin with are treated as the smart ones. Our media has absolutely no hindsight. All of the focus is on the future, what we do with the mess now, with absolutely no acknowledgment of who's fault the disaster was to begin with. Bush and McCain should have absolutely no standing to discuss these issues, they should have zero credibility. They made the mistakes that Obama is going to have to clean up. Obama has the answers, it is time the media stop pretending he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Ezra Klein points out the pro-McCain, anti-Obama double-standard in the media, and he is absolutely right:

To really understand the importance of Maliki's comments, you need to consider their opposite. Imagine if Maliki had walked in front of the cameras and said, "at this stage, a timetable for withdrawal is unrealistic, and we hope our American friends will not bow to domestic political pressures and be hasty in leaving Iraq just as the country improves." It would be a transformative moment in this election. John McCain would talk of nothing else. The cable shows would talk of nothing else. Magazines would run thousands of covers about "Obama's Iraq Problem." Obama would probably lose the race.

If something like this happened that boosted McCain's position and made Obama's look bad, the media would tear Obama apart. When it happens to McCain...*crickets*. Thanks media, hopefully SNL will make fun of you at some point so you'll start doing your job. There never was a pro-Obama bias in the media, but the pro-McCain bias has been staggering from the very beginning.

Update: Marc Ambinder puts al-Maliki's announcement in context:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq's Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there's no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what's left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren't equivalent to Iraq's, but... Maliki isn't listening to the generals on the ground...but the "hasn't been to Iraq" line doesn't work here.

So how will the McCain campaign respond?

Via e-mail, a prominent Republican strategist who occasionally provides advice to the McCain campaign said, simply, "We're fucked." No response yet from the McCain campaign.

Never fear, we're all counting on the media to sweep it under the rug for you McCain, as usual. Let's hope I'm pleasantly surprised for once..

Update #2: A White House employee screwed up while forwarding the article titled "Iraqi PM backs Obama troop exit plan - magazine" internally (undoubtedly so the Bush administration could start with damage control), and accidentally sent the email to their huge media distribution list! Hahahaha. You can't make this stuff up.

Update #3: The Obama campaign has released a memo highlighting pretty much the exact same things I just highlighted in this blog. Here is the intro, check here for the whole thing:

RE: Obama Leading on Foreign Policy, McCain Following

There are two problems with John McCain’s political attacks on Barack Obama’s foreign policy. First, on the biggest foreign policy questions of the last eight years, Barack Obama has made the right judgment and John McCain has sided with George Bush in making the wrong one. Second, the failure of the McCain-Bush foreign policy has forced John McCain to change his position, and to embrace the very same Obama approaches that he once attacked.

Just this week, Senator McCain has been forced by events to switch to Barack Obama’s position on two fundamental issues: more troops in Afghanistan, and more diplomacy with Iran. On both issues, Obama took stands that weren’t politically popular at the time – opposing the war in Iraq as a diversion from the critical mission in Afghanistan, and standing up for direct diplomacy with Iran – while John McCain lined up with George Bush. Time has proven Obama’s judgment right and McCain wrong.

The next shift appears to be Iraq. For months, Senator McCain has called any plan to redeploy our troops from Iraq "surrender" – even though we’d be leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government. Now, the Bush Administration is embracing the negotiation of troop withdrawals with the Iraqi government – a position that Senator Obama called for last September, and reiterated on Monday in the New York Times. And now, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports Barack Obama’s timeline, telling Der Speigel that, "Barack Obama is right when he talks about 16 months."

Update #4: This is great, so after the buzz over Maliki's statement, the White House got involved, had the US Embassy in Iraq contact Maliki to "express concern" with his statements, and then an "Iraqi official" released a retraction of his comments from US Central Command (hmm...) saying, that Maliki's statement was "misunderstood and mistranslated" and "not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq" although the Iraqis never mention what was "mistranslated" or "misunderstood", in fact Maliki's comments really leave absolutely no wiggle room, they were clear as day, and Der Spiegel stands by their reporting. Let's review what Maliki said:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

"Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems."

"The Americans have found it difficult to agree on a concrete timetable for the exit because it seems like an admission of defeat to them. But it isn't," Maliki told Der Spiegel.

Yeah, I don't see how you can mistake that. It doesn't seem like anyone is buying the coverup. Pretty ridiculous.

Update (7/21): Now McCain is directly disputing the translation of Maliki's comments, even though the New York Times has independently verified the translation as accurate. Oh yeah, and then the same Iraqi spokesman who came out yesterday (from US Central Command) and said Maliki's comments were "mistranslated" and "misunderstood" after the White House threw a fit, came out today and said he hopes US troops can be out by 2010, which is essentially the exact same time frame Obama is pushing for. So much for "mistranslated" and "misunderstood". Yet McCain is still trying to refute this is what the Iraqis want. Keep digging McCain, keep digging.

Plutocracy

2008-07-19T10:07:00.000-07:00

“ We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.

— Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856 - 1941)

Does McCain Advocate Jihad Against "The Muslims"? [Update: Yes, He Does]

2008-07-18T11:00:00.000-07:00

If there is one thing we don't need, it is a religious war between the world's two largest religions, which include half of the people on this planet. The last thing we need is to inflame the Middle East, where our policies (notice, not our "freedom" or "love" or "liberty" or even our culture) have made us a source of hatred, by taking the conflict from the level of conflicts over foreign policy to global religious crusade.

Yet that seems to be what the McCain campaign (just like Bush and most, if not all, Republicans) seems intent on doing:

One of John McCain's fellow POW's in Vietnam defended the war in Iraq [on an official campaign conference call], saying, "The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us."

In a phone call with reporters arranged by the McCain campaign, Colonel Bud Day added: "I don't intend to kneel and I don't advocate to anybody that we kneel, and John doesn't advocate to anybody that we kneel."

So the guy makes it obvious that he is speaking for McCain (on a first name basis no less). And this just isn't any surrogate, he is a major McCain surrogate. The guy is mentioned on McCain's website at least 143 times. He was one of the Swiftboaters against Kerry. He was recently rolled out by the McCain campaign to attack Gen. Wes Clark. This guy speaks for McCain, he talks about foreign policy and military matters for McCain. And here is he saying that "the Muslims" are trying to kill us, and we are, ostensibly, left with no other choice but to kill them first.

As Ben Smith notes, this "seems to have cast McCain's foreign policy in stark, religious terms". It isn't that we are at war with a predominately Muslim country because we invaded it without reason. It isn't that al-Qaeda attacked us because we had military bases set up in Saudi Arabia, and give weapons to Israel, which they use to kill Palestinians. Those are the foreign policy issues Osama bin Laden himself cited when explaining his opposition to the United States. Notice, he didn't say it was a religious war between Islam and Christianity (because according to the Republicans we are a Christian theocracy), that can only be solved by over a billion people dying on one side or the other. His beef isn't with our culture (he may not like it, but it isn't in itself justification for terrorist attacks), it isn't with our religion, it is with our foreign policy. He has specific and very real policy goals.

So why the hell are the Republicans intent on making this about religion? Why do they want to turn this into a clash of civilizations? Why are they constantly making this a war against Islam, or "Islamofascists" (which not a single GOP operative can actually define)? What a sloppy, obtuse way to understand and develop a foreign policy. Seriously, are these people complete idiots? Can they not understand grownup problems like foreign policy and diplomacy? Does it have to be some idiotic, Manichean dichotomy inevitably resulting in some epic World War between major religions?

Talk about sloppy and ignorant. "The Muslims"? He does realize that we have allies in the region that are Muslim. We rely on military bases set up in Muslim countries. The Iraqis we supposedly went over there to "liberate" (well, after we supposedly went over there to protect ourselves from "WMDs") are Muslim. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans, are they trying to kill us? Must we kill them lest we be forced to "kneel"? There are two Muslim members of Congress, Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, are they trying to kill us? Should our "Christian" members of Congress lynch these two terrorists on the floor of the House? After all, they are with "the Muslims", so they must be trying to kill us. Right? That is how it works when we view the world through the oversimplified lens of an eight-year-old, or a Republican, right? We should have Christians fighting Muslims in the streets, and vice versa right? There are 55 countries in the world with majority-Muslim populations, so which should we wipe off the Earth first? Should it be Indonesia? They have the most Muslims, so obviously since we are "at war" with "the Muslims" that must mean they are trying to kill us the hardest, right?

I think you get the point, it is appalling, and insane, that Republicans go out of their way to frame real, life and death issues in the world in fairytale terms that only confuse the issues in the minds of Americans, while exacerbating the hatred or distrust of the United States in the Muslim world. Do we really want a prospective next president surrounding himself with maniacs who want to make our foreign policy into a new Crusade? Do we really want to go there? Do we really want our next president to view foreign policy through the lens of religious war? Does that make us any better than those fringe extremists who believe in jihad? Because that is essentially what these people are trying to make this into, a Christian jihad against all Muslims, fueled by fanatics, American fanatics.

Now I won't even go into the bigotry and racism these comments were wrapped in, I'll just wait for McCain to denounce and reject his surrogate's comments, and end his role in his campaign. I'll wait for McCain to apologize to Muslims, or at the very least the hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans, and the two Muslim US Representatives who were undoubtedly offended by the McCain campaign accusing them of wanting to kill "us". I'll wait for McCain to make it clear that our foreign policy in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia isn't framed in terms of an "us or them" religious war between the United States and the world's 1.5+ billion Muslims. That is what I expect from the McCain campaign, because with the tense relationship we have with the Middle East, there is no room for these beliefs to be tolerated, and there is no room for further worsening our standing in the Middle East.

And McCain can apologize for his "I hate the gooks, I will hate them as long as I live" comments while he is at it.

Update: McCain's campaign definitely isn't denouncing or rejecting the comments, in fact they seem to agree, unsurprisingly. A McCain spokesperson responded with this:

"The threat we face is from radical Islamic extremism."

Yes, it has nothing to do with our foreign policy, or leaders or ideologues of various countries, or globalization, or poverty, it is apparently all about their religion. Their problem with us has nothing to do with their religious faith, which shares its origins and many beliefs with Christianity, it is about our foreign policy. Am I surprised that McCain shares the fanatical and completely ignorant beliefs of his surrogate and the vast majority of the Republican Party? Of course not.

John McCain Erupts On Matt Lauer (Hey, It Could Happen)

2008-07-18T10:17:00.000-07:00

I've written a few times about McCain's flash temper. I've also made fun of Bill O'Reilly's flash temper. Let's bring that all together now, so you can see what McCain's temper looks like on tape (naughty word warning):

It took us a long long time before the O'Reilly showed up. You know with McCain's history of explosive anger it is only a matter of time before a McCain equivalent pops up, only knowing him it would be accosting a world leader, perhaps a Muslim or Asian world leader, or god forbid an Asian Muslim.

McCain Calls Obama "Extremist", Fails To Have Evidence, Or Logic, To Back It Up

2008-07-18T04:57:00.000-07:00

So McCain says Obama, who easily falls within the mainstream continuum of the Democratic Party, is an "extremist", and possibly a socialist:

In an interview with the Kansas City Star, reporter Dave Helling asked McCain whether he would really characterize Obama as an "extremist."

McCain's reply: "That's his voting record. All I said was his voting record -- and that is more to the left than the announced socialist in the United States Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont."

Helling then asked if McCain actually thinks Obama is a socialist. "Oh I don't know," McCain answered.

McCain doesn't know, because McCain has no idea what socialism is, just like no Republicans have the slightest clue, they just throw around those terms to attack their opponents.

First, I have to say, that there are no "extremist" elected officials in Congress, at least not on the liberal side of the spectrum, for the obvious reason that they would be considered "extremist". Apparently "extremist" to McCain is categorized as anyone who supports the minimum wage, wants to get out of Iraq, and doesn't support outrageous tax cuts for the rich while the middle class falls apart. By McCain's definition, the vast majority of Americans are extremists, which begs the question, who are they extremists to? If the mainstream is extremist, the only people who will view that as extremist are those who actually are extremists, or those to the hard right, like McCain, Bush, and a sizable portion of the Republican Party who want more war, more corporate handouts, less civil liberties, less social services, etc, all things that fall on the fringes of public opinion. Check out this Daily Kos diary from yesterday which kind of hits on this same point, of how the media and the Republicans never stop trying to frame uncontroversial, common sense policies as "far left" or "extremist", or "socialist", which apparently now is beyond extremism.

Secondly, he says Obama's voting record is to the left of Bernie Sanders, which it is not. McCain is undoubtedly using the numbers from the debunked National Journal ratings, which coincidentally always single out the current Democratic nominee as that year's most liberal member of Congress. In 2004 it was John Kerry, and now it is Obama. Weird, huh? Yeah, apparently Obama and Kerry are more liberal than progressive champion Russ Feingold, and yes, socialist Bernie Sanders. Bottom line, it's bullshit. The rankings are meant to create anti-Democrat talking points for Republicans. Bush-Cheney jumped all over the announcement in 2004 to attack Kerry, and McCain is using the same bullshit "ranking" this time around. You can be sure that whoever the Democrats nominate in 2016 will also be the "most liberal" member of Congress, assuming they are a senator. I prefer the much more accurate Irregular Times (check here for House rankings) ratings on the Progressive Patriots website. These ratings pass the reality test, because obvious indicators are in line with common sense. Feingold is on top. Obama is "pretty darned progressive", but doesn't rank quite as progressive as Sanders. Hillary ranks to the right of Obama in the "moderately progressive" category. Those rankings make sense, there are no red flags, whereas in the National Journal rankings there are nothing but red flags.

Alright, so McCain is full of shit, Obama isn't more liberal than the socialist. McCain also doesn't seem to understand how the legislative process works, because "extremist" bills, bills so far from mainstream acceptability, will never come to a vote in the Senate, and so neither Obama, nor Sanders, would ever have the opportunity to cast such an "extremist" vote. Anyone who thinks that any mainstream Democrats are extremist are obviously very very conservative, and either complete idiots, or very disingenuous. I don't know which McCain is here, because he has proven himself both ignorant and disingenuous in the past (daily), so really it could be either-or on this one (or maybe both).

In response to the Republicans trying to demonize socialism, refer to my blog from Wednesday.

Fight Offshore Drilling

2008-07-17T05:38:00.000-07:00

Read my blog on the Republican lies about offshore drilling, which would take decades to reap any benefits, and even then wouldn't do anything to lower prices, and would only make oil companies richer.

Then sign Sen. Barbara Boxer's petition to the Democratic Congressional leadership urging them to maintain the offshore drilling moratorium.

The bottom line is that offshore drilling is a false solution, one that will put the environment at risk, and only exacerbate global warming. The only people offshore drilling would help are rich oil CEO's, which is why the Republicans are trying so hard to exploit high gas prices (which they created) to fool Americans into letting oil companies drill the hell out of our coastal waters.

So like I said, read my past blog on offshore drilling, and sign the petition. Gracias!

The Corporate Welfare State

2008-07-16T09:36:00.001-07:00

It is ironic that conservatives have demonized terms like "socialism" and "welfare state" for decades, turning the philosophy that the state should look out for the welfare of its citizens, especially those less fortunate, into some fiery source of evil. Yet instead of socialism, they promote unbridled greed, pure capitalism without bounds (if they had their way, luckily the Democratic Party has prevented them from giving corporations 100% free reign, instead they are stuck at maybe 90% free reign), and no matter how much damage that does to the planet, to society, to all the values Americans profess to hold sacred, somehow they've managed to keep up the charade that the private sector is the answer to everything, and the public sector is the worst thing since Saddam, you know, after we were done supporting him and giving him chemical weapons.

What is even more ironic though as they can parade their market fundamentalism around, and condemn anything even remotely aimed at promoting social good as "socialism", yet the second big corporations need any help (and often times even when they don't need any help), you can count on the Republicans to come running to their aid. Somehow it is weak, "bleeding heart", and horrible when liberals want to help out people who can't pay for gas, or pay their rent, or their bills or for food or education. God forbid we raise the minimum wage. Yet when Republicans dump billions of dollars in corporate welfare into the private sector, that is OK. Somehow helping people is an attack on the sacred rules of market fundamentalism, yet when the government subsidizes failed corporations (which they do constantly), that is somehow just. The best part is, the CEO's and shareholders of these corporations get to keep their profits and giant paydays, while their loses are "socialized", meaning taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Now I'm a firm believer in Democratic Socialism, and I think it is a great thing for taxpayers to pool their resources to lift everyone up, to provide great benefits for the society as a whole. In other countries they may pay a bit more in taxes, but they get free universal health care, they get free college education, they get taken care of, and the government makes sure no one gets neglected. THAT is worth it. In that system everyone gives some, and everyone gets back a lot in return. In the conservative "corporate welfare state", everyone gives some, and corporations get to pocket it, whether it be in the form of corporate bailouts for irresponsible lenders, subsidies for corporations that shouldn't be subsidized, or the ever-popular hugely wasteful no-bid contracts to defense contractors like Halliburton that actually make more profit the more taxpayer money they waste.

Isn't it ironic that they have fooled us into believing that the government helping us is "evil socialism", while the government bending over backwards to give our money to the already rich and powerful is macho capitalism at its finest? I think much in this country would change if people had a deeper understanding of the economy, and how screwed up our national priorities really are when we have a disintegrating middle class, and ever-expanding lower class, while the rich get richer and corporations enjoy record profits, all while they ignore (and profit from) huge crises like global warming. It is just amazing that they have done such a great job at convincing so many voters to vote against their own best interest. This is of course where wedge issues like abortion (even though Republican policies actually increase abortions), gay marriage, and immigration. And that is also why John McCain won't focus on the issues, because the issues are against him, and indefensible, so you'll continue to see him attacking Obama's patriotism, and his wife, and his faith, and his race, and anything else that will distract voters from how the Republican Party has been playing them for fools for decades.

Let's hope it doesn't work this time, but it won't be easy, because the corporate-owned media would love nothing better than to see the status quo continue, so they hype up the non-stories, they focus on the wedge issues, they focus on everything but real issues like the fundamental flaws in our economy, or the environment, or any of that.

Anyway, read Robert Borosage's piece on "Wall Street Socialism".

I Think It's Time To MoveOn

2008-07-16T09:09:00.001-07:00

MoveOn has a new ad hitting McCain for wanting to stay in Iraq for years, despite the vast majority of Americans and Iraqis wanting the war to end.