BATSHIT CRAZY - ALBANY EDITION

Jeez.  What does it say about a Republican candidate when he accuses the New York Post of being in bed with Democratic candidates? – the New York Post for chrissakes?  And what does it say about a Republican candidate when Rudy Giuliani doesn’t even endorse him?

I’ll tell you what it says.  It says he’s BATSHIT CRAZY.

Every time Carl Paladino opens his mouth he sounds more and more like a raving lunatic.

By now I’m pretty sure everyone has read about this creepy encounter, but for those who haven’t; yesterday Carl Paladino, upset that news of his extra-martial lovechild was making waves, implied that Andrew Cuomo had had an affair at some point during his marriage.  Paladino offered no evidence to support the charge.  Last night Crazy Carl completely lost it when asked by a New York Post journalist to elaborate.  Paladino threatened; ‘I’ll take you out, buddy.’  He then accused the Post of ‘kissing Cuomo’s ass.’  Hilariously, the Postie responded; ‘like we kissed Patterson and Spitzer’s asses?’

To imply that the New York Post is in the tank for any Democrat should be in and of itself a committable offense.  It’s really hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would buy a line like that, so for Paladino’s campaign staff to stand by that accusation should throw their sanity into question as well.

The videotape of the incident ends with an explanation by Paladino’s campaign manager that Dicker was off of Paladino’s Christmas card list.  Yeah, I’m sure that’s what Paladino meant.

It is comical, and incredibly frightening at the same time, to watch Carl and his people speak.  The fact that some polls show this guy edging closer to Cuomo boggles the mind.

The Post has thus far dutifully towed the wingnut party line by not running hog wild with this story. In fact, they seem intent on forgetting it ever happened.  Instead they chose to do a cover story on the Rutgers sex scandal suicide story.  But they did run an AP story entitled; “Paladino smears Cuomo as cheater” in which they buried the story of the confrontation with their Albany chief, Fred Dicker.  I am certain that had Andrew Cuomo threatened any Post employee the paper would have published a special edition entirely devoted to making this the defining moment of the campaign. 



The rest of the Murdoch empire has also been rather mute on the matter as well.  I mean, these are the same people who have been wailing about Obama’s commentary on Fox News recently, calling him and his operative thuggish bullies.  But threatening to take someone out isn’t thuggish?

A quick look at the Fox News website this morning did show an article entitled “NY Gov Candidate; I’ll take you out.” – but it has since been amended to the less embarrassing, “N.Y. Gov Hopeful in Confrontation With Reporter.” 

By the looks of it, it would seem Mr. Dicker is being groomed for a new position – under the Fox News bus.

Had this been a Democratic politician threatening to take someone out, there is little doubt that the topic of the day would be whether or not the politician should be prosecuted for making threats.  And Fox would have a line of talking heads stretching around the block, waiting to call for his head.

As far as Rudy Giuliani is concerned, he declined to endorse Paladino before Carl’s Sonny Corleone moment, so I wonder if this will help him make up his mind.  Honestly, I am pretty sure that eventually Mr. Noun-Verb-9/11 will throw Crazy Carl his support and try to help him bury this embarrassing episode, but his reluctance to do so thus far does send a message that even Rudy has a threshold of crazy that he is uncomfortable crossing.

The real question is whether or not the rest of the media will take note of this, and press Paladino for an explanation for his brutish behavior or they will let him slide.  I guess we shall see.









msny093010

HAS THE NATION GONE MAD??

Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll for Presidential Approval was just released and lo-and-behold Obama’s rating is higher than his disapproval.

Wait.  What?

Yes, there is a Rasmussen poll out today that shows that President Obama’s approval rating is at 50% and his disapproval at 49%.  -  That means that even among the Rasmussen crowd, people aren’t as down on the guy as we think.

But, I thought his approval numbers were in ‘free-fall.’  John McCain said his approvals were ‘cratering.’ 

What gives?

Republicans pledge to hasten the consolidation of wealth. Democrats pledge to help them.

By failing to address the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, the Democratic Party is all but ensuring the extension of tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the nation, and at least an additional 3.7 trillion dollars of budget shortfall for the foreseeable future.

If this is true – and it appears to be – then this will go down as one of the stupidest moves by the spineless weasels on the Hill – and that’s saying a lot for this crop of morons.   This was a win-win for the party – offer a needed tax break to 98% of the population, and force the Republicans to defend giving a break to the most privileged class in the nation.

It’s sickening, frustrating, depressing, and makes it nearly impossible to staunchly support the party.

Why?  Why would they make such an idiotic decision? 

Does the leadership of the party think that after the election they will be in a stronger position to stop $700 billion dollars from flowing back into the hands of the wealthy? 

Every single day it looks more and more like the government is simply an arm of the wealthy, working at their behest to protect their interests only.  As long as Republicans and Democrats alike are beholden to wealthy donors, there will no representation for the other 98% of the nation.

Citizen’s United was quite possibly the final nail in the coffin.  If there is no major campaign finance reform, we’re finished. 

I’m positively sick over it.  

BATSHIT CRAZY WINS. ROVER ROLLS OVER

It is truly a poignant commentary on the state of the Republican Party when Bush’s Brain gets excoriated for daring to articulate what everyone this side of Wingnutistan realizes – Chris O’Donnell is BATSHIT CRAZY.

Its one thing when (semi) rational conservative thinkers like David Frum get driven out of the herd for pointing out that the tea-bagged loonies are savaging the GOP’s long term viability for some short term success – and by success I mean cable TV ratings.  But it’s something else entirely when Wingnutistan’s former Mufti of Misinformation gets a tea-bag Fatwa of Heresy for speaking the truth for the first time since he admitted that without the WMD lie, the Iraq war might never have happened.

To say O’Donnell is extreme is putting it mildly.  O’Donnell is, of course, famous for her Anti-Masturbation crusade, which would likely earn her the private enmity of her potential Congressional colleagues, many of whom frequently beat their own drums, so-to-speak.  But that's just a small taste of her crazy.

More disturbingly, O’Donnell has objected to calling sufferers of AIDS as “Victims” and has insisted that rather than lower the risk of infection, the use of condoms actually encourages more sex, thereby leading to more HIV infection.  To show contempt for people afflicted with a deadly disease is not just crazy, it's disgusting and completely hypocritical for someone who claims to be an ardent follower of Jesus Christ's teachings.  What would the would-be Senator say to the Lepers Christ attended to?

This is also a woman who once said that during WW2 it would have been more moral to turn over Jews to the Nazis than it would have been to ‘practice deception’ by hiding them.  God, she contended, would provide a way out for those unlucky Jews.  One can only assume that the she believes that Anne Frank and family were punished by death for the lies of their failed Gentile protectors. 

Talk about Compassionate Conservatism.

The tea-bagged masses were appalled by Rove’s blasphemy, and immediately began a collective temper tantrum that continues as I write.  They called him a childish whiner and told him to shut up and jump on the bandwagon. Some demanded that he be suspended or even fired for his job at the Tea Bag Channel…I mean Fox News.  Sean Hannity looked like he wanted to cry. Michelle Malken didn’t mince words, calling Rove a ‘loser.’

And in a stunning bit of comic irony Rush Limbaugh invoked his own testicles when making his case for O’Donnell, urging Republicans join him in going ‘balls to the wall’ for her.  It will be interesting to see how El Rushbo can do that without breaking O’Donnell’s ‘hands off’ admonition. (How’s that for a brain searing image?)

Finally, the HMGIC (Head Momma Grizzly In Charge) of the Tea Party, former partial term Governor turned paid political infotainer, Sarah Palin mocked Karl Rove, chiding him to ‘buck up’ and join the circus or face his own unplanned obsolescence. 

Somewhere Dr. Frankenstein is shaking his head and saying ‘I told you so.’

How did Bush’s Brain fall so far so fast?  And how soon will he come to realize his new roll in the Neo-Neo GOP and just pile into the car with the other sad old clowns, like John McCain, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner?

O’Donnell’s extreme views epitomize the wild-eyed insanity of the ultra-right.  She’s just another in Momma Grizzly’s herd of opportunistic political cannibals.  Obviously it would be worse if O’Donnell won her Senate race, but the prospect of her parlaying her new found rock-star status into a 7 figure ‘contributors’  gig with Fox or publishing her anti meat beat manifesto scares me even more.   Somewhere deep down, I think that O’Donnell would prefer take her show on the road become a highly compensated national spokesperson for the up-and-coming Chastity Belt industry.

The most crushing realization that I had yesterday was that I actually agreed with Sir Turd Blossom for once in my life.  Rove knows that in the past fringers from the right used the primaries to not-so-subtly pull errant politicians back to their base while not alienating moderate republicans and middle-of-the-road Independents.  But the moderate Republican is going the way of the Dodo as the big tend shrinks.  This year, the tea-baggers are unseating even the marginally moderate Republicans. The inmates are taking over the asylum.  And with every lurch to the right, the Republican Party gets scarier and more dangerous, especially if they are able to wrest control of Congress from the Democrats.   Let’s hope that rational voters understand what Rove understands – that many of these ideologues are not only unelectable, they are nuts.

UPDATE:

Almost as if on cue, Rover rolled over before his masters this morning, likely smacked in his snout by Uncle Rupert before being sent to the doghouse.  One can only presume that this morning, Rover was summoned early this morning to also fetch the slippers of Rush Limbaugh.  So much for him being the Boy Genius.

LATER UPDATE:  I think we may have a second round of GOP Establishment flogging on the horizon.  I just read that former Senator Al D'Amato did an interview this morning, saying the same things about  New York's Republican Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino as Rove said about Christine O'Donnell.  Namely, that he's BATSHIT CRAZY!

"...anger overcame reason and enabled a fringe element to choose the Republican nominee. The end result was the selection of Mr. Paladino, a divisive figure simply not fit to lead this great state."

Stay tuned for a riveting night of coverage of this story on Fox News! 


msny091610

Uh-Oh, don’t look now. There’s some more indoctrinating a-coming!

Uh-Oh, don’t look now. There’s some more indoctrinating a-coming!

Lost in all of the hatertainment of the last few days was the announcement yesterday that President Barrack Jomo Kenyatta Obama was planning another back-to-school sermon to brainwash our little patriots-in-training.

One would think that with all of the evils he’s perpetuated on America, this would be a bigger story.  But I guess the protectors of liberty are just worn out after a particularly jingoistic couple of weeks.  That, and the NFL season has finally begun. Alas, I feel it’s incumbent on me to remind everyone of the dangers of allowing the President of the United States of America near our children.

Many of you may have forgotten some of the horrible things he said in last year’s address, so I thought I’d dig up and recycle an old entry to freshen people’s memories. 

For those of you who do not prefer their news pre-masticated, here is the Marxist’s missive in its entirety.  But I warn anyone with the proclivity toward tea-bags and tr—corner hats to beware; reading the words unfiltered can cause subliminal programming that is antithetical to liberty and freedom.  Please exercise great caution. 

How dare he speak about responsibility.(click to read.  Weak-minded beware...brainwashing is highly likely)

Those of you, who feel they may be susceptible to persuasion, please allow me to interpret and de-code the text for you.

If the Socialists try to teach our kids responsibility, who is going take out mortgages they can’t afford? Who is going to run up huge credit card debt? This foolish suggestion will cripple the economy.

“Stay in School”

- Of course he wants kids to stay in school. The longer they stay in school on YOUR dime and “educate” themselves the later they can join society, get a real job and contribute.

“You'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment.”

- Another capitalism crippling concept from the commie Kenyan comrade in chief. If our children grow up and cure alleged “diseases” like cancer and aids, our pharmaceutical companies will fail, causing the loss of billions of dollars in revenue. No amount of life-saving is worth destroying our economy.

“You'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination…”

-- OK. Comrade. Newsflash: Homelessness is a choice – need a home?? Get a job. Discrimination?? He should talk about REVERSE-Discrimination such as the White male is subject to. Does Obama realize that Whites only represent 95% of the Senate? And white male representation in the US Senate has plummeted to a shockingly low 78%. This is a crisis, and the so-called Magic Negro is talking to our kids about discrimination?

“I hope you'll all wash your hands a lot”

- Another Statist concept. Government controlled Hygiene. And Hitler only wanted to bath the Jews, right? Besides, washing hands during Flu season only hurts local doctors and nurses. Without routine illnesses, hard working patriotic medical professionals will go out of business.

“I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work.”

-- Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck would beg to differ. TV has made these men rich beyond their wildest dreams doing little or no work whatsoever.

“Don't be afraid to ask questions.”

-- Revolutionary speak….code for rise up against Whitey!! Beware this seditious language is treacherous and damaging to our democracy. Who does this guy think he is Trotsky?

MSNY rev. 091410

TAKING A STAND AGAINST SELF-SERVING VETERANS

(From September 1, 2010)

A few weeks ago, patriotic Republicans finally took a stand against the lazy *disabled* September 11 First Responders by blocking a vote that would "provide medical monitoring to those (first responders) exposed to toxins at Ground Zero (and) bolster treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11."

They did that because they were standing up for the little-man.  And by 'little-man' I mean multi-billion dollar foreign corporations.

More recently, the GOP took a stand against the entitlement-hungry police, firefighters and schoolteachers of America by voting en-mass against emergency funding that would allow them to stay on the job, protecting and educating us.

They did this because, as John Boehner said:  "The American people don't want more Washington 'stimulus' spending - especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests." 

And thank Beck they did these.  These were compassionate, dignified, and honorable acts befitting the Lord and Savior of all greedy people, Big-Love himself.

Today, GOP'ers are finally beginning to stand up to the lazy Veterans of our glorious wars. John Boehner wants to rescind the remaining stimulus funds earmarked for the Department of Veterans, saving over a billion patriotic dollars from falling into the hands of grubby, Agent Orange affected, self-entitled Veterans.

According to ThinkProgress, the money was earmarked for; "renovating, repairing, and upgrading veterans' hospitals across the country, including one in Boehner's home state of Ohio. The money is also being used to improve claims processing units for veteran health benefits (by hiring more workers and upgrading equipment). The stimulus also provided $250 payments to disabled veterans and gave private sector employers a tax credit for hiring unemployed vets." 

Alan 'Million Teet' Simpson, patriotic veteran, Republican, member of George W. Bush's triumphant Iraq Study Group,  and lately the vice chair of the Obama administration's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform clarified the GOP position by stating;

"The irony (is) that the veterans who saved this country are now, in a way, not helping us to save the country in this fiscal mess,"

(Am I the only one that thinks that the REAL irony of that statement is that Simpson - a vet and fiscal 'expert' is actually one of the people NOT helping save the country from this fiscal mess?)

Simpson seems to think that Vietnam Vets suffering from Agent Orange-induced neurological disease like Parkinson's are somehow bilking the nation.  I wonder if Simpson would prefer if limbless returning Iraq veterans used old plungers as prosthetics instead of the expensive aluminum ones their getting at Walter Reed now?

This must be the restoration of honor that Glen Beck and Sarah Palin were talking about this weekend  - Making greed and selfishness honorable again.

So, we can add cops, firemen, teachers, and veterans to the list of self-serving looters, including Hispanics, orphans, unwed mothers, homosexuals, and all the other Obama-ites who are slowly destroying the nation.  Imagine how much better a place this country would be without cops, firemen, teacher, soldiers, Hispanics, orphans, and homos.   Thankfully we have defenders of liberty and warriors against Statism like Orange-Man, Big Love, Mama Grizzly and Million-Teets doing the right thing for America

WHY NEWT, RUSH AND THE REST OF THE HATEMONGERS OF THE GOP ARE HYPOCRITES - AUG 16 EDITION.

(From August 16, 2010)


This weekend Newt Gingrich tried to compare Islam to Nazism, a bigoted charge that should make every religious person cringe.  But that was the least of his stupidity. 

In widening his war against the First Amendment, Gingrich hallucinated the assertion that 'we' would never allow the Japanese to build a house of worship next to Pearl Harbor.  Here is the exact quote:

"We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center."

The problem with this statement, aside from it's incredibly stupid assumption that we were attacked by a particular nation with a particular religion on 9/11, is that THERE ARE JAPANESE HOUSES OF WORSHIP within close proximity to Pearl Harbor.

Aiea Hongwanji Mission is less than 2 miles from the Pearl Harbor Naval Base and the USS Arizona Memorial and sits barely 1500 feet from the waters of Pearl Harbor.

Ewa Hongwanji Mission is about 4 miles from the Navy Base and less than 1 mile from the waters of Pearl Harbor.

Now, Mr. Gingrich may be trying to split hairs here, but the reality is that if the same Islamic group announced that they were going to build an Islamic center 1 mile, or 2 miles, or 10 miles from Ground Zero, the reaction would be exactly that same.  The same vile, race baiting would continue. 

Witness the completely unhinged reactions from the radical right to proposed Islamic houses of worship in Murfreesboro, Tennessee - more than 750 miles from Ground Zero, and  in Temecula Valley, California - a mere 2400 miles away from Ground Zero.  The animals wouldn't care if the Islamic center was 1 foot or 1000 miles from Ground Zero, they are just in the midst of a orgy of hatred in the hopes of driving their rank and file into blood frenzy of hatred toward the Head Muslim in Charge.

Not that it matters, but there are no less than 20 Japanese Shinto and/or Buddhist centers of worship within 20 miles of Pearl Harbor, in case anyone was curious.  I wonder how Rush could have missed them on his recent vacation to Hawaii.

I have yet to hear any of the Neo-Cons who oppose the Cordoba Center come out and forcefully support the right of American citizens to build Islamic houses of worship.  Let one of their bigoted number show some integrity and support equal religious rights for ALL Americans!  They won't, because they don't.

"I've said it openly, if they want to build this mosque in the South Bronx, I'm all for it,"

Who the hell is Newt trying to fool?  Thanks for *allowing* these pesky Turbin Toppers to build a house of worship in the South Bronx.  Really?  The South Bronx??  Newt Gingrich couldn't find the South Bronx on a map, and he certainly wouldn't ever want to walk the streets of the South Bronx, but he is generous enough to support the construction of a house of worship there.

And this man has the gall to call someone else a Nazi??

In the 1930's the German and Polish Nazis were kind enough to allow the stiff necked Yehudis to stay in their countries, as long as they lived in certain communities.  That was the opening salvo against European Jewry under the Nazis.  Within years, it wasn't simply enough to ghettoize them.  I wonder if Bryan Fischer and Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Wingnutistan braintrust have another solution to the problem of American Muslims?  Dare I say, a Final Solution?

You know, I don't like Mike Bloomberg very much, but at least this man has the balls to stand up and say 'This is America.  We must respect the people's right to freely worship.'  Newt Gingrich is a despicable being, and while he and the other racist Republicans may enjoy themselves a great big laugh in November, they are the ones, mapping the route to the destruction of America, NOT the Muslims who are practicing their Constitutional RIGHT to religion.


MSNY  08.16.10
---

Update:  And just as I am about to post this, Harry "No Sack" Reid, waffles on this most basic of issues and caves to the haters and skulks away with his dick in his pocket, saying that he thinks the center should be built somewhere else.  What a coward. 

TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: MORE ISLAMIC INSENSITIVITY

(From August 9, 2010)

Conservatives critics are expressing outrage at the timing of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan this year.  Noting that in the United States, Ramadan begins on the 12th of August, and ends 30 days later on September 11th, Republican pundits and politicians alike are reacting strongly to what they perceive as the religion's lack of sensitivity toward the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Former Speaker of the House of Representatives and possible Republican Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich spoke out against the timing of Ramadan at a GOP diversity conference this weekend in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Gingrich stated that he had no quarrels with Muslims right to practice their faith on almost any other day, but he asked that they consider another more appropriate time, or simply forego Ramadan for the immediate future out of respect to the families of 9/11 victims.

Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League also released a statement stating that the ADL always supported the free practice of all religions, but that the organization was obliged to oppose Ramadan on the grounds that the existence of Islam defamed the memories of those who died on 9/11.

Although Ramadan is traditionally a time of fasting, introspection and atoning for previous sins for Muslims around the world, Foxman added that it was an unnecessary provocation and that Muslims should look toward the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur for inspiration.  "Yom Kippur" he said, "is a 24 hour period of fasting, introspection and atoning for previous sins."

Based on the Muslim Lunar calendar, the holy month of Ramadan's date on the Gregorian calendar varies every year.  Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has indicated he would be open to holding Congressional hearings to address the matter.  "Freedom of Religion doesn't mean wherever or whenever you want."  He said from the floor of the Senate.  "Let them just pick a day that doesn't conflict with other holidays, and be done with it.  The American people want stability and predictability.  Look at Christmas, it's always December 25th.  Look at Easter, it's always whenever it is too."

Former partial term Governor, Sarah Palin weighed in the subject on Saturday, Tweeting her disapproval she said,  "Dont dance on the graves of fallen patriots."  Later that evening she issued a follow up plea to all 'civilized' Muslims to show compassion.   "All civilised Mslms, renunciate hate and vilence."  [sic]

Representative Steve King (R-IA) blamed Muslims for not trying hard enough to assimilate into American society.  Addressing the crowd at the annual Sioux City Pork Jamboree, King noted that he didn't see one Muslim in attendance.  "America is Beer and Barbecue," he told a cheering audience, "If faithful Muslims can't enjoy Budweiser and Brats, what are they doing here?"

Glenn Beck wept profusely at what he termed the death of American values.  "Folks, if you don't think that the timing of this whole thing wasn't directly cooked up by Barry O, then I've got a bridge made out of gold to sell you.  No really, I really do.. Go to Goldline dot com now for more information."

Beck then announced that he was organizing a massive 'non-sectarian' rally in opposition to Ramadan where participants of all faiths were invited to reject Islam.  The Church of Latter Day Saints has indicated it's participation in the event and announced that they would offer free-of-charge post-mortem conversions to any Muslim who wished to have a dead loved one saved from the fires of hell.  An LDS official also confirmed that the posthumous conversions would be offered to deceased Jews as well, although for a nominal tax-deductible processing fee.

More on this story as it develops.



MSNY  08.09.10

TAKING A STAND AGAINST SELF-SERVING POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS

(From August 5, 2010)


Last week Republicans took a bold stand against those whiny 9/11 First Responders who feel 'entitled' to free healthcare.  How dare those freeloaders expect that they should be put before the profits of foreign corporations?  How un-American can they be?

Today, the patriotic leadership of the GOP is drawing another line in the sand, this time against special interest groups - namely policemen, firefighters, and teachers. 

You see, police and firefighters are 'special interests' according to the rich. In their gated communities the wealthy have private security forces, so why would the rich want to see their money go toward keeping local cops on the streets when they could get that tax money back and invest it in Blackwater's private security subsidiaries?

Orangeman Boehner attacked the issue straight on:

"The American people don't want more Washington 'stimulus' spending - especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests."

Damn right Johnny!  If states can't afford to pay their police and firefighting forces, then let 'em eat cake!  USA USA USA

And for the love of god, why would you want to save over 5000 teacher jobs in Ohio, Mr. Boehner?  If you did, then scores of children might grow up and realize how full of shit you've been all these years.

For these special interest groups to ask for hand-outs during a time when the Republican Party is trying to secure tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of the nation shows an unmitigated gall on their part.

Who cares if this bill will save 300,000 jobs held by the middle class?  Who care if there will be no tax increases and that this bill will be fully paid for by spending cuts elsewhere?  Who cares if this bill will reduce the budget by 1.3 BILLION dollars?  This bill doesn't help the rich, so what's the fucking point?

TAKING A STAND AGAINST LAZY 9/11 FIRST-RESPONDERS!

(From July 28, 2010)

As if the GOP / Big Business mutual masturbation show wasn't sickening enough, the Neo-Conned are now opposing a bipartisan bill to.....wait for it.........

"provide medical monitoring to those (first responders) exposed to toxins at Ground Zero (and) bolster treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on 9/11"

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the GOP is lining up against the Firefighters and Police Officers who rushed into the Asbestos inferno of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

WHY?

Because it would full paid for by unfairly closing a "tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries."

NO!  THE HORROR.  WE MUST PROTECT THE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS!!

Anyone want to know who the largest foreign corporations in the USA are??

Yes, everyone's favorite, BP leads the pack. SURPRISE!!

Next is Royal Dutch Shell.  Toyota, Honda,  Nissan and banking giant ING round out the top 5.

The profits of these companies are MORE IMPORTANT to today's GOP than the long term health maintenance of the men and women who put their lives on the line and those who died on September 11, 2001.

Patriotic GO(B)P'ers are calling the claims......wait for it.......

A "massive new entitlement program."

That's right.  These lazy shiftless, cops and firemen are just looking for a hand out.   It is an entitlement!!

You can't make this stuff up, folks.

I know you are, but what am I?

(From July 19, 2010)

In response to charges that the Tea-Party movement tacitly condones racism from within its ranks, movement leaders have invoked the age-old schoolyard defense of 'I know you are, but what am I?'

The Tea Party Federation's New York organizer, David Webb most directly echoed the grade school affirmation by saying; "A false charge of racism is itself, racist."

Tea Party Express leader, Mark Williams went further; "They (The NAACP) make more money off of race than any slave trader, ever. "  He also declared that; "It's time groups like the NAACP went to the trash heap of history where they belong along with all the other vile, racist groups that emerged in our history."

Allegations of racism began flying in the fall of 2009 when Mark Williams famously called President Obama; "our half white, racist president."  Before that, groups like the NAACP had generally not taken a position on the fledgling Tea Parties.  Williams also stated that the "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug and a racist in chief"  "Mubarak Hussein Obama is a Nazi."

It's not clear if Williams' accusations of President's Obama's alleged racism fit with David Webb's pronouncement that false charges of racism are in and of themselves racist.

Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front?
Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea.  

In an effort to be more civil and distinguish themselves from their more 'Express' or 'Federated' counterparts, a leader of the Tea Party Patriots, Robin Stublen said; "Mark Williams is not someone I would want being my spokesman.  In politics, people like Mark Williams are a dime a dozen, even when you factor in inflation."  She also went on to show her greater civility by calling Williams "an arrogant, self promoting, egotistical jerk."

Not to be outdone Tea Party Nation group also released a statement repudiating racism and inviting all patriots regardless of race to join their numbers. To be clear, as Ms. Stublen tried to stress in distancing herself from the Tea Party Express, not all of the tea-partiers are racist.  But Williams and Webb are doing a bang up job convincing the sane world that they all are.

Williams is on record as making 'non-racist' pronouncements such as the predominantly black and impoverished New Orleans victims of Katrina "didn't have the necessary brains and common sense to get out of the way of a Cat 5 Hurricane and then when it hit them- stood on the side of the convention Center expiring while reporters were coming and going."   

Yes, this from a man who describes himself as a "humanitarian" and his GOP astro-turf organization as a "Human rights movement."  Williams says that  "it's impossible for these people to be malicious or to be racist." 

Note to self: Patriotic American humanitarian Tea-baggers feel that it is NOT malicious to mock the victims of disaster.  This must be the compassionate conservatism that President Bush spoke so glowingly of.  Who knew?

Williams doesn't only limit himself to subjects involving race, he also pronounced Cindy Sheehan a traitor and said that by protesting President Bush, "she is aiding and abetting the enemies of this country and the people who killed her son." But to be fair, Williams said this before protesting the President became a patriotic duty.    He added without malice that she "is on a mission to figuratively urinate on her son's grave and make his death stand for nothing."

Nope.  No malice there.  And I can see the slogans now.  'Humanitarians for War!'

The tea-baggers denied that there was any malicious behavior or spitting involving their members, but of course when confronted with actual evidence to prove them wrong, they change their tune and instead claim that the belligerent behavior is caused by Democratic 'plants' among the purely humanitarian, non racist, non-malicious patriots in the crowd in the video.

Williams claims that it is "impossible for (tea-partiers) to be malicious or to be racist..." so he must think that hurling epithets and spitting on members of Congress isn't malicious at all.  See the video yourselves and decide whether you think that the behavior of these tea-partiers can possibly be considered malicious. 

The right-friendly Politico website had a very interesting informal poll on its site a few days ago, asking the question:  "Do you think members of the tea party should, as the NAACP asks, condemn "racist" elements of their movement?"

The responses were rather predictable, but telling. (As of the writing of this post) Respondents were split between "Yes. We can't have hateful language in political discourse." (45%) and "Where's the evidence of these "racist" elements?" (45%)

Almost half believe there is no evidence of racist elements at all. The poll doesn't ask if they thought that the Tea Party movement was a racist movement, only if people thought that there were "racist elements."

They don't believe there is evidence of racist elements?

Republicans like Senator John Cornyn of Texas fear the wrath of the tea-baggers and the hatertainers of Wingnutistan who trumpet the movement so they also claim ignorance of any elements of racism.

Mitch McConnell whose hand picked GOP establishment candidate was trounced by the Tea Party darling Ayn Rand Paul in Kentucky demurred, choosing instead to remain mute on the subject, rather than risk the further ire of the baggers.

Wacky Michelle Bachmann believes that calling out the racists of the Tea-Party is a Democratic strategy to marginalize their political opponents.  In a way she's right, but the Land O' Lakes Loon still doesn't say anything to refute that those political opponents spew racially tinged hate speech; in fact she's still trying to harness that energy to promote herself, announcing that she would be forming a tea party caucus, with her serving as the chair, of course.

Cornyn called the resolution by the NAACP "slanderous", and said that there was "there's just no basis" for any allegations of racism.

No basis at all?

The mere fact that half of the respondents to the politico poll don't accept that there is even the slightest bit of evidence of racism among the Tea Party is indicative of the level of denial that the tea-baggers specifically, and the greater Republican family in general are living in.

Here's some evidence.

Mark Williams went all-in this weekend with a 'parody' blog post he published in which he wrote as NAACP chair Ben Jealous, whom he 'satirically' referred to as the "Head Colored Person of the group and "Tom's Nephew."  That's Tom as in Uncle Tom for anyone who didn't get the 'joke.'

In the blog, Jealous, writes to Abraham Lincoln to "condemn the abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'."  Jealous, who Williams portrays as speaking like an 19th Century slave asks Lincoln; "What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life?"  He goes on to assert that "As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!"  He continues to ask; "How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?"

The implication of this 'parody' is that Williams believes that black Americans are NOT productive members of society but instead WANT a rich white people to think for them so that don't have to and can sit a home and watch television all day.  That's hilarious.

Oh, but there's more.

Williams writes that "Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the reward."  What this Lenny Bruce of the Looney Right is saying is that the 'reward' for emancipation was having to actually work for a living - a 'consequence' that black people didn't expect.  Williams suggests that black people would prefer to be slaves, subject to subjugation, physical abuse, rape and humiliation rather than get a job.

He proposes that Jealous, the NAACP and all black Americans believe that Lincoln was 'the greatest racist ever" for having being so cruel as to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.  Somehow I think this is Williams projecting his own feelings here.   In his 'satire' Williams implies that black people believe they had a "great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house."

He closes by having Jealous ask Lincoln to "Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong."

Biting satire, huh? No racism there.

Mark Williams became completely unhinged when he was called out for his hateful race baiting and threw everything and the kitchen sink at the NAACP, playing his ridiculously childish game.   Even David Webb couldn't dismiss this example of craven bigotry and on Sunday 'formally' severed ties between the Tea Party Express organization and the Tea Party Federation after the Tea Party Express refused to "officially remove (Williams) from the ranks of the Tea Party Express," and for his expulsion to be announced in a press release.

The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.

But Williams must have recognized that his drivel crossed the line because he himself removed his 'satirical' letter to Lincoln from his own website, stating that "the continued controversy over this post can only dectract (sic) from the discussions."  But unable to let go he goes on to champion the cause of harmony, by calling on the NAACP to drop the term 'Colored' from its name, calling it a racial slur.  Thank goodness black people have the likes of Williams in their corner.

By Sunday evening, in an attempt to save himself, he abruptly cancelled several cable news appearances and declared that he would no longer speak on the subject of race.

The real kicker is that the more the racist elements within the Tea Party movement get exposed for what they are, the louder their protestations and denials become.  Their hysterical shrieks of denial of the existence of racist element within the movement evoke the famous Shakespeare line from Hamlet;  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

They obfuscate, claiming that their main raison d'être is shrinking government, lessening government control in the private sector, and lowering taxes - as if Images of Obama as a bone-in-the-lip savage are logical and legitimate expressions of opposition to his policies, when in fact they have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with hate.

The responses are predictable.  The comments sections of articles on this issue are filled with shocked indignation and transference:  The NAACP are the real racists.  The Democratic Party is the party of the KKK.  The Republican Party freed the slaves. Al Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright. Islam.  On and on.   Classic 'I know you are, but what am I?' rationale.  Brilliant strategy.

The abject refusal by many people in the GOP and Tea-party to entertain the idea that SOME of their movement could possibly be seen as racist is laughable and attaches the stench of tacit agreement upon all them.

Why are they so loath to admit that there is even the slightest possibility that a racist sentiment subsists among the legitimate positions of the movement?  I think the answer is clear.

Steele's Spiel

(From July 2, 2010)

Imagine if Howard Dean had made a comment like the one Mike 'the animal' Steele did today;

"Keep in mind again, federal candidates, this was a war of Obama's choosing. This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in."

HUH?

Is this the same guy who once said that this is "a war we have to win."?

Continuing, the RNC chairman, aspiring rapper and bondage club enthusiast also put on his military strategist cap and said this of Obama;

"Well, if he's such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that's the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan? All right, because everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan."

Unpatriotic at best.  Treasonous, at worst.  And for sure a slap in the face to every serviceman and woman in uniform and the over 1000 Americans who have died during this war - at least that's what Drudge and Rupert's Kids would say if Howard Dean had spoken those very words.

But since the video emerged of Steele pretending that the Afghanistan war was something that Obama sought, Drudge and Fox have remained noticeably mute on the subject.  Usually they would express 'shock' and 'dismay' at such a anti-war sentiment.  Why aren't they addressing this?

Peggy Noonan, another of Rupert's Kids, wrote an Op/Ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier this week that follows the same theme as Steele's.  Despite the fact that Noonan was on the pep-squad for the war and openly expressed her lust for the star quarterback in 2003, bestowing on him, the none-to-subtle Freudian title of "steely-eyed rocket man,"  she nevertheless also chose to ignore Dubya in assailing the current US Afghan strategy, one that he put in place. Instead she laid the blame on "Washington" which is code for 'the Democrats' who, not coincidentally, are the party in control of Washington these days.

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert thoroughly dismantled her ridiculous hypocrisy in a blog post, but the objective of her argument was to introduce a narrative that Afghanistan is Obama's war.  And not just his through inheritance, but of his creation, regardless of  the fact that the war began almost 6 years prior to Obama's election.

Whenever Maureen Dowd or some other New York Times liberal dares to question the war strategy or the military establishment in any capacity, you can be damn sure that Drudge will pull his sirens out of the cupboard and let everyone know how much the liberals hate America.  But not so when one of his own kind does it.

As of today though, it seems that an emerging theme for the citizens of Wingnutisan is that Obama is the one who started this flop of a war, Obama is the one who "actively prosecuted and wanted to engage" in an unwanted war.  And the Chicken hawk brigade of draft dodging deferment-seeking hatertainers completely ignores from their own what they would otherwise label sedition.  That sure sounds fair and balanced.

Already Steele is walking back his stupidity in hopes that all will be forgiven.  His foolish contradictory statement released this afternoon does nothing to change the impression that Obama somehow chose to prosecute a war that no one in the US wanted to engage in.  He does not reconcile his hypocritical statement that "the one thing you don't do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan."  Nor does he lay any blame on the man who actually 'engaged in a land war in Afghanistan' in the first place.

Tomorrow he will claim to have been misinterpreted, that he's just another victim of the vicious gotcha journalism of the lame stream media while reiterating the theme of blaming Obama for everything.

But the die has been cast, the bell rung, and the responsibility for starting this war is being shifted to Washington, and Obama and the Democrats by association, while the GOP tries to get their rank and file to conveniently forget that their 'sole decider' is the one that laid the turd that stinks so much today.

It's an ambitious attempt at narrative driving, and one that is so hypocritical that it staggers the mind.  However, if there is any group that embraces hypocrisy so enthusiastically, it's the NEO-GOP.  And if there was any group that has proven that it cannot even rebut the most spurious of claims, it is the Democratic Party.  So it just might work.  Stay tuned.

About those Cratering Approval Numbers - June 2010 Edition.

(From June 28, 2010)

Last week NBC/WSJ ran a poll showing that the President's Approval numbers were slipping.  Drudge, of course reveled in this headline, as he does with any poll, published by almost anyone, showing downward movement in the President's numbers.  The punditocrasy jumped on this poll, and right wing talkers once again exclaimed that Obama was "cratering.".

See, the thing is - as I've noted before - this theme of cratering numbers isn't accurate.  Not that you'd ever know it since the 'normal' media seems to be averse to reporting these things and the Democratic Party has got their heads so far up their asses that they can't seize on any good news especially good news coming out of the opposition camp.

A quick scan of this morning's Rasmussen Polls actually shows some very interesting numbers.  Let me note again that Ras is the gold-standard for Neo-Con polling, so these numbers would appear to be rather telling.

First, Obama's approve/disapprove numbers are the SAME today as they were when Congress last recessed for the summer (49-50 today, and 48-51 on July 31, 2009.)  And all of this comes over the course of a year during which, among many other things, Obama supposedly socialized healthcare, the allegedly unqualified Sonya Sotomayor was selected and confirmed to the Supreme Court, and the President bullied BP into paying for causing the Gulf disaster.  All of which, as the Republicans would would like you to believe, done against the wishes of the American people.

It would seem to most that had the President done so poorly since last July that his numbers would be actually lower than they were then.  But even according to the all-seeing Ras, they aren't.  What gives?

Some other fun facts are that since April 20th - the day the BP Deepwater Horizon rig caught fire and sunk - the President's approval rating is totally unchanged at 49-50.  And the percentage of those who "strongly disapprove" of the President is the lowest that it's been since February 18, 2010.

Finally, after a two week period, during which the President met with the heads of BP and dismissed the loose-lipped commanding general of the Afghanistan war his approval numbers have gone up....wait for it....8 POINTS.  Did I mention that this was according to Rasmussen?  8 POINTS seems like a lot of action during a 10 day period doesn't it?  If a clearly partisan pollster like Rasmussen can't support the theme of a Presidency in free-fall, who can?

So why are we continually being led to believe that his numbers are "Cratering"?  And why are so few people countering these myths with facts? 

PANNING, PANDERING, PARTICIPATION, AND THE PARTY , PT.1

(From June 16, 2010)


There's been much back and forth this morning on the speech given by the President last night and it's focus (or lack thereof.)  And more than the legitimate complaints about it, I've notice some very interesting things.

Let me begin by saying that I, like many others, was disappointed in the arguably milquetoast nature of the address, although to be perfectly honest, I have not seen any demonstratively more detailed proposals from anywhere else on the specific issue of stopping the flow of oil.  Instead, I've seen a hail of criticism directed at the President - acceptable criticism that I have believed always comes with the territory of being the President of the United States.

But, the most important thing that I've noticed - and have seen articulated by some bloggers - is the pointed critique of the President from within the ranks of his supporters and whether it ultimately helps or harms the overall causes of the supporters of the Democratic Party.  This is what I would like to explore.

One of Will Rogers' most often mentioned quotes is;

"Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats. If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans."

I believe that this is one of the fundamental differences between the parties.  Republicans were loath to express any dissatisfaction at the missteps and disappointments that marked George W. Bush's presidency.  In fact, the worse he erred in handling situations like Katrina, for example, the more they cheered him on.  Very few Republican pundits panned his "Heckuva job, Brownie" comments.  Very few expressed outrage that in the months following Katrina that there were still thousands of homeless living in deplorable conditions and that the fundamental issue of levee safety had not been addressed.

My point isn't to compare or contrast the respective responses of Bush and Obama to disaster it is simply to highlight what I see as a prominent difference in partisan participation on the issues.

Like Rogers said, Democrats tend to be more willing to buck their party than Republicans, and I think that to be an admirable trait, even if that fact is generally lost on middle of the road Americans.

Many commenters on this site have expressed dissatisfactions and frustration with the policies of this administration, and rightly so as some of these policies are in stark contrast to campaign promises.  There are many progressive Democrats who understand the difficulty in balancing idealism and pragmatism while governing and justifiably still feel somewhat disappointed at the same time.

Still, as the inimitable Dick Day has pointed out to the progressives on this site, the alternatives to the Democratic Party are far, far less attractive than the admittedly imperfect situation that we face today.  As he eloquently noted, he's chosen not scream and 'throw his feces' at the President.

Republicans seem to be far more disciplined at controlling their ranks and rallying support for their elected officials, but is that a good thing? Will Rogers also once said;

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

Is dissent from within the ranks always a positive thing? And does it matter that such dissent can become ammunition for the opposition to manipulate public opinion?

Boehner tells AMERICAN TAXPAYERS TO GO F*@K THEMSELVES!

(From June 10, 2010)

Are you fucking kidding me, Boehner??  Are you for real??

The TAXPAYERS should bear responsibility for this mess??  This, coming from a man who railed against bailouts for the auto industry and the banking industry??

Bailing out an AMERICAN corporation like GM for its mismanagement and mistakes is WRONG, but bailing out a FOREIGN corporation like BP for its mismanagement and mistakes is RIGHT?

How the hell can you reconcile those positions?

Boehner, you are a person who believes that offering taxpayer money to AMERICAN CITIZENS for healthcare is a Socialist scheme??  You believe that government funding of healthcare is rewarding laziness.  But offering taxpayer money to a FOREIGN corporation is clearly in the ruthless capitalist mold.  You believe that government funding for cleaning up BP's craptacular oil spill isn't rewarding BP's laziness.

How the hell can you reconcile those positions?

The gall to side with a FOREIGN corporation instead of the AMERICAN people.  To side so openly with BIG BUSINESS; to advocate for lower corporate taxes, and a limit to corporations liability in disasters like this is sickening.

I know how can you reconcile those positions.  Because the pathetic truth is that you would rather see America destroyed than agree with one single thing that this President of the United States suggests.  Rush Limbaugh said it when he wished to see this President fail, even if it means Americans suffer.  Its obvious that you agree because this clean up will cost America more than any bailout you opposed.  This will do more economic damage to Americans than any GM or Citibank bailout could ever.

And let's see if the brainwashed, astro-turfed, Hatriot TEA-BAGGED can actually grow a sack and speak out against this, or if they finally show themselves to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate GOP.  I'm betting on the latter.

IF they are truly against bailing out private enterprise, then they'll be enraged and marching on Boehner's office, but I'm sure Ayn Rand Paul, Oath-Keeper Angle, and the rest of the phonies will quietly fall into line.

And by the way, I'd like to send a big FUCK YOU to David Cameron, The UK Tories, London Mayor Boris Johnson, and the UK's Murdoch Press for whining about how the President's suggestions that BP be fully financially accountable for this disaster might harm some elderly English retirees.  We should save up all the filthy water and oil covered dead fish and dump them the fucking Thames, maybe they would prefer that! 

FLOTILLA FLASHBACK AND THE POLITICS OF PUBLIC PERCEPTION

From June 4, 2010

I couldn't help but notice that this weekend's Gaza Flotilla incident bore some striking similarities to events that occurred in the very same waters some 63 years ago.  Events  that when recalled, beg the question of why the Israelis could not and did not handle this matter more delicately?

In 1947, while Palestine was still under the mandate of the British, emigration of Jewish World War 2 Displaced Persons, many of whom were Concentration Camp survivors was largely forbidden. The British struggled to formulate a strategy that would not anger their Arab allies in the region who feared the demographic shift created by the swelling number of Jews, while accommodating the desires of Jewish refugees to settle in Palestine.

Jewish organizations devised a plan that had a dual purpose; a) to attempt to surreptitiously smuggle refugees into Palestine, and, equally as important, b) to publicize and highlight the British policies in hopes of swaying world opinion and forcing the them to allow Jews to freely immigrate to Palestine.  They called the plan Aliyah Bet.  The British reacted by imposing a naval blockade.

More than a hundred ships attempted to run the blockade and many were interdicted by the Royal Navy.  Over a thousand refugees drowned while trying to enter Palestine and only a few thousand successfully eluded the blockade and reached the shores of Palestine.  Tens of thousands of refugees were captured and interred in detention camps or forcibly repatriated to British controlled areas of war ravaged Europe.  My father and uncle were on one of these ships, and after being intercepted near the port of Haifa were taken to and held at a British detention facility on the Island of Cyprus for several months.

One the most famous of these ships was known as the SS Exodus.  Its attempt to run the blockade ended badly as well, and ultimately helped cause the British to re think their policies.  The Exodus was intercepted by the Royal Navy in international waters, and reasoning that the British did not have the authority to do so, the crew refused to stop and resisted being boarded.  British warships made physical contact with the Exodus and commandos stormed the boat.  In the ensuing clash, 2 Jewish refugees from the war, and an American aid worker were killed, and dozens of others were beaten or wounded.   The ship was badly damaged and had to be towed to port where the refugees were transferred to another vessel and deported back to France, its original point of embarkation.

The embargo held, but the result was that world opinion began to tilt in favor of the Jews.  Less than one month after the Exodus incident, the UN issued their recommendation for a partition of Palestine, and the creation of independent Arab and a Jewish states within it's boarders with Jerusalem under UN protection.

The UN decision and a sustained resistance to the occupation by Jewish nationalists would hasten Britain's termination of the Palestinian Mandate and lead to the creation of the nation of Israel, but the organizers of the Aliyah Bet must be credited with accelerating the pace of events.

It is in this light that I would like to reflect on the Gaza Flotilla incident.  But first, let me offer some caveats.  First, I am firmly in the peace camp.  I feel strongly about the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign nation of their own as well as staunchly support the right of Israel to exist in peace, but I agree with those who say that the flotilla's aim was provocation and not simply delivering aid to the Palestinians of Gaza.  I also refuse to condone violence under any circumstance, and this includes both the activists on the Marmara, the Palestinians as well as the IDF commandos that stormed the boat. 

But, the question that I've been going over and over in my mind is this;  If, as many politicians and analysts have claimed, the flotilla aimed only to provoke a confrontation, why did the Israelis not recognize this and instead hand the Palestinians an apparent public relations victory like this?

Could they not have learned from the British failures of 1947?

It seems clear that the Flotilla had purposes nearly identical to those of the Exodus; a) delivering aid to Gazans, and b) publicizing and highlighting Israeli policies they oppose in hopes of swaying world opinion and forcing a break in the blockade.  Given that, why didn't Israel adopt a less aggressive posture?  Surely a standoff with no internationally televised loss of life would have been a more acceptable outcome.

Let me be clear, I believe that Israeli intelligence knew without doubt that there were no weapons of any consequence on those vessels.  In addition to close cooperation with the decidedly anti-Islamist Turkish military, I venture that Mossad activity around this hugely publicized mission was very high.  Just as Israeli intelligence knew about the weapons aboard the Iranian vessel Karine A, which was intercepted and seized using overwhelming force far from the shores of Gaza, I think that the manner in which the Israelis boarded the vessels of the flotilla indicated that they knew that there was not a significant military threat.  But I think they didn't expect the activists to act they way they did.

And the fact that in the 3 days since the event, the only "cache" of weapons produced by the IDF as justification for their raid consisted primarily of a few sticks, knives and sling-shots - deadly weapons to be sure, but really only a threat if one were planning to rumble against the Sharks or the Jets and not the best trained and equipped army in the Middle-East.  How much damage could those weapons really do to Israelis living outside of the Gaza Strip? I am certain that Israelis living in proximity to the Gaza boarder would prefer sling shot fire to Quassam attacks.

The Exodus episode is relevant to several key points of contention regarding the Gaza flotilla incident.  Even if one agrees with Israel's position that the blockade is legitimate and justified in light of on-going attempts by terror groups to smuggle arms into Gaza, why then would Israel interdict the vessel in international waters where they do not have the cover of maritime law?    If the people aboard the Exodus justified their resistance by claiming that they were boarded illegally in international waters, should it not stand to reason that those aboard the Marmara were also justified?

And what if the Israelis had allowed the vessel to dock in Gaza and shown a willingness to moderate their positions?  Could the sight of cheering Gazans be worse than the images of dead and wounded activists?  Would it not have been easier for Israel to portray their actions as compassionate rather than scrambling to portray the activists as having tenuous connections to 'global terror networks'?

Instead, the actions of the Israelis have allowed the Palestinians to direct the narrative focusing on their victimization at the hands of the brutal Israeli oppressors, where previously every Quassam fired from within Gaza by extremists that landed in schoolyards inside Israel painted decent Palestinians as terrorists.  Neither portrayal is entirely accurate nor are they the image the respective parties want to foster.

The incident has also had the deleterious effect of hardening the resolve of the activists who have already launched more efforts to break the embargo, engendered antipathy among sympathetic nations, dissuaded her nominal allies like Egypt from assisting in stopping the flow of arms into Gaza, and encouraged her enemies to use violent rhetoric and threaten retaliation.

So, I return to my original question;  If the Israeli government knew what the intentions of the activists were, why the hell did they play right into their hands?

I don't wish for this post to be a forum to bash either side of this very complicated and heartbreaking situation.  I've already mentioned my wishes for a peaceful resolution to the years of strife and bloodshed.  I think the only solution is through dialogue and understanding, something that too many on both sides are not eager to engage in.  And I think that when supporters of Israel examine what has just happened, they should recall Aliyah Bet and the Exodus to avoid a repeat of this most unfortunate of episodes.

SHOCK: NEW GOP ELECTION STRATEGY UNVEILED

From May 26, 2010

In a stunning shift in strategy apparently designed to capitalize on Republican distain for all concepts of social responsibility and entitlement, the GOP has made the bold decision to publicly rebuke traditional views of religion in favor of the more aggressive, self-centered and capitalist-friendly philosophy embraced by the their leadership.

Leading the charge, Rush Limbaugh, the undisputed leader of the Republican party issued a missive blasting the teachings of a man he termed a "radical West Bank cleric", Jesus of Nazareth, for his dreams of a "Christian brotherhood of man" to rule the world. Limbaugh repudiated major tenets of what he has termed "Christ's Liberal plot to subvert American Capitalism." He also roundly denounced what he called the "weak willed pacifism" of the Bethlehem native, calling him "a naïve, self-loathing, guilt-ridden liberal anti-war protesting hippy Jew in dire need of a bath, who apparently was never attacked for his beliefs."

A self described spokesperson for the estate of Christ and his family, calling himself Isaiah, had previously stated that mankind should "beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks," He continued by saying that, "nation should not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

"It's that kind of thinking that got us attacked on 9/11." Limbaugh raged.  "We've had enough of this type of terrorist apologist drivel.  Hold on, I'll turn a cheek and they can kiss it, if you know what I mean!"

Noted patriot, and self described protector of Liberty, Mark Levin has long excoriated Jesus as a Statist, hell-bent on controlling the lives of American citizens through "a centralized authority based on anti-American socialist hegemony."  He scoffed at the idea that Americans should, "go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me (Jesus)" as Jesus was reportedly quoted as saying shortly before his death.

"This Matthew kid was lazy and poor.  Of course he wanted welfare handouts from those of us who actually work for a living." Levin preached. "Him, and the rest of those 12 free-loading disciples aren't getting their dirty hands on my hard earned Fishes and Loaves." Levin lauded the Pharisees of the Bible for their embrace of virtuous Capitalist ideals and has encouraged like-minded Patriots to call on their representatives in Congress to reject the "tyrannical plot to socialize America."

"The Statist believes that some 'higher power' will feed the hungry and cloth the naked. The Statist says 'it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.' That's because the Statist never worked a day in his life." Levin said. "Christianity is just another gigantic step towards achieving a Utopian society that the Statist craves."

"Tell that 'messiah' to get back on his goddamn donkey and ride his ass back to Jerusalem and out of the great Ronald Reagan's 'shining city on the hill.'"  Levin continued.   "He's not wanted here.  And tell him to take fucking Rahm with him too!"

Mr. Levin also noted that if Christianity was really so popular, why then, had his book, Liberty and Tyranny been on the bestseller's list for so long? "The Statist believes that if he places his propaganda books in every hotel, hard working Americans would be fooled into buying this liberal tripe.  You want to educate people? Put my manifesto in every cheap sleazy motel room."

Conservative entertainer Sean Hannity agreed. "Who the hell is watching the 700 Club on the Christian Broadcast Network anyway? Have you seen Fox News' ratings lately?  We're on top!"  Fellow Fox personalities concurred, with Bill O'Reilly branding Jesus Christ a Pinhead, while Glenn Beck made a tearful appeal to his listeners to reject all religious documents containing the words 'justice' and 'compassion.'

Limbaugh's fiery statement concluded by pillorying Mr. Christ as a 'slimy, long haired, emasculated son of a man-hating feminazi' as well as castigating him for his dalliances with the diseased and an alleged prostitute known as Mary. "This sack-cloth wearing liberal pals around with sickos and washes the feet of street hookers. He's worse than Bubba."

"I hope, for the sake of America that this Christianity nonsense finally fails." He pronounced. "Yeah, I said it. You hear that AP?"

Outspoken conservative pinup girl, Ann Coulter reacted strongly to Jesus as well. "He's a faggot...Look, the guy is all buddy-buddy with 12 dudes. He's not married. You do the math. I mean except for one fag hag whore and his mommy, does this guy hang out with any women."

A busy Michael Steele granted a working interview while attending to his RNC duties of hand-washing Limbaugh's Lear Jet suggested that any Republican seeking spiritual fulfillment should forsake obsolete houses of worship and instead spend their Sunday's at the Sodom and Gomorrah Club in West Hollywood - the official adult entertainment venue of the RNC, where he noted, they offered an excellent buffet, discounted matinee lap-dances and voter registration services.

GOP strategists hope to exploit the current anti-entitlement sentiment by turning religion into a major issue for the upcoming elections, and operatives are fanning out in hopes of a repeat of last summer's town hall anger by encouraging supporters to vocally challenge the wisdom and strategies of clergy men in churches across the nation.

Reached for comment at his Wyoming lair and asked of his own views on the Republican shift in approach, The Devil himself endorsed the move and proudly proclaimed that he has long held the same beliefs that conservatives like Limbaugh and Beck were now espousing.  "One of my proudest achievements was telling the so-called Lamb of God to 'Go Fuck Himself.'  Never does a day go by when someone doesn't thank me for being so honest."  

As for his own political aspirations, he indicated that he had no interest in reentering American politics after serving for eight years as Vice President under George W. Bush.  But, added Satan, "2011 is going to be a damn good year." as he was penning an autobiography, embarking on a speaking tour with his close friend, Pope Benedict, and was considering offers from Roger Ailes to host his own Sunday morning chat show.

Appearing at a question and answer session, 2012 Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee seemed relieved and confessed that he was "tired of living a lie for so long."  Responding to concerns that rejecting religion will alienate some of the Republican Party's staunchest supporters, Huckabee said, "It will take some time to wean the poor and ignorant off of the Bible, but I am confident that patriotic Americans will rally around greed, selfishness, violence and hatred for the good of the nation."

Former partial term Governor, turned fee-based motivational speaker Sarah Palin weighed in on the hot button issue during a recent NRA event where she held up an assault rifle and warned members of the pro-gun lobby that if Jesus were alive today, he would try to take away their god-given right to own machine guns.  The crowd cheered as Mrs. Palin proclaimed, "We are all Romans today. No one will take away our guns!"

And Neo-Conservative Tea-Party groups have called on Americans to boycott the Jesus cult as unpatriotic, radical liberal activism. Organizers in several states are planning Frankincense and Myrrh parties to protest what they are calling Jesus' unconstitutional tithing views.

Fox News has indicated it will schedule and heavily promote a full slate of coverage of 'spontaneous events' coinciding with the upcoming sweeps week, with Sarah Palin in negotiations to headline, and Halliburton, the NRA, and Goldline dot com inking official corporate sponsorship deals for the events.

More news on this as it develops.



msny 05.26.10

REFLECTING ON 2009'S TEA-BAG 'SUMMER OF HATE'

From May 13, 2010

Reflecting on 2009's "SUMMER OF HATE"

I recently heard some middling GOP hack on FoxNews discussing the President's "Ratings Slide," reasoning that such a slide was due to how "out of touch" he was with the "will" of the American people.  So I thought I'd revisit a post that I made last summer to see exactly how precipitous this supposed "slide" has really been since the great Tea-Bag Town Hall Summer of Hate.

Generally, I tend to trust Gallup's polling a bit more than most of the other pollsters, yet I know that the residents of Wingnutistan refuse to acknowledge any information other than what is given to them by the GOP owned and operated outlets.  So, I decided to include the gold standard of polling for Neo-Con ideologues, none other than the 'Ras' itself, as Kos likes to call it.

Between Gallup, Rasmussen and the ever popular Fox News Opinion Dynamics, I'm sure that I'll be able to divine the true feelings of Americans.

FIRST, here's an interesting tidbit for those people who believe that President Obama  DOES NOT represent the "Will Of The People."  Through the exact same time in office, Obama's approval rating is 6 points higher than Ronaldus Magnus, the patron saint of clueless conservatives.  According to Gallup, through 475 days in office, President Obama's approval rating is 50%......Ronald Reagan's was 44%! 

Using Wing-nut logic, these numbers would seem to indicate that St. Ronnie was 'out of touch' as well (something I can't argue with.)  But you wouldn't know it by listening to  Neo-Cons gushing about the man they want to be the next face of the Fifty Dollar Bill.

Ok, back to that precipitous slide, the "cratering" of the approval numbers that the maverick John McCain cheerfully suggested.

Rupert Murdoch's personal favorite, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, had Obama's Presidential Approval numbers at 53% on August 11, 2009 in the midst of the town halls.  His approval ratings as of May 4, 2010, 48%.  A decline to be sure in how people polled by Fox viewed the President, but hardly a "cratering" by any stretch of the word.  One would expect more from the Patriots who watch Fox.

According to the all mighty RAS, Obama's Presidential Approval On July 31, 2009  (the start of the Senate Summer recess and town hall 'Summer of Hate')  was 48%.  Obama's Presidential Approval rating on May 11, 2010 was 48%.  Not such a precipitous slide as the wing-nuts would like us to believe, huh?

Gallup's Presidential Approval Ratings put Obama at 54% on July 27, 2009 and as recently as May 13, 2010 they have him at 51%.  That's a MIGHTY 3 point drop for the President.  Funny, I never hear Matt Drudge reporting on this, do you?

For all the talk about a conservative awakening - and perhaps there has been one after the drubbing they took in 2008 - it would seem that over the 9 months since the town halls, his numbers haven't fallen as sharply as the right wing media would like to suggest.  So maybe the wing-nuts can just shut the F up about the "out of touch" President and his woeful approval numbers that aren't.

Finally, I thought I'd include some other fun facts from Rasmussen regarding how out of touch the President and the Democrats are;

Rasmussen respondents trust Dems more on Government Ethics 35% - 33%.  37% Say Obama More Ethical Than Most Politicians, 35% Say He's Less Ethical.  And, for the first time in over a year of regular polling, Rasmussen voters nationwide say Republicans in Congress are acting more partisan than congressional Democrats by a margin of 62% to 58%.

Fun stuff.



MSNY 05.13.10

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE UK COALITION

From May 9, 2010

A funny thing happened on the way to the right, the right moved to the center.

While Matt Drudge was kvelling that 'Cam was the Man,' not so tacitly gloating over the coming worldwide conservative ascendancy, Cam was moving toward a coalition with the centrist Liberal Democrats.

So it is important to note that just because the Conservatives have retaken the reigns, with the Lib-Dems on board, this government isn't going to be the same as Thatcher's mirror to Ronald Reagan's GOP.

Even the new Conservative Foreign Minister couldn't resist the opportunity to jab at both his Labour predecessors and Tony the Poodle's former master, George Bush when he stated that, "David Cameron and I have always said we want a solid but not slavish relationship with the United States."

And the Lib-Dems want to make sure everyone knows they are not of the same mind as the neo-conservatives of the Republican party.  Their published platform stands in stark contrast to the ideals of the American GOP and Neo-Conservative movement.  Here are but a few notable differences;

On Foreign Affairs;

"Britain's reputation has been damaged by dodgy arms deals with dictators, allegations of involvement in torture, and of course the disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq...We want the inquiry into the Iraq war to be open, with all meetings held in public except for reasons of national security. We also want a full judicial inquiry into British collusion in torture and "extraordinary rendition"."

Can you imagine ANY neo-conservative saying anything remotely close to these sentiments?   I particularly like the very definitive, "and of course the disastrous and illegal invasion of Iraq."  

On Healthcare;

"The NHS represents values which unite us as a nation - a comprehensive health service, which treats all people equally, and is free when we need it.  We believe in fairness with entitlements to healthcare guaranteed. We believe access to personal care should be based on need not the ability to pay."

Just the word 'entitlement' is blasphemous to neo-cons.  And the idea of a 'comprehensive health service that is free' would make John Boehner puke.

On Climate Change;

"Climate change is getting worse and could destroy our way of life. Our children will suffer most if we don't act now."

Climate change??  What climate change?  Most neo-cons don't even believe that it exists, no less that it is 'getting worse.'

On Public Transportation;

"Liberal Democrats believe buses and trains should be affordable and reliable so people can have a real choice about how to travel.  Only the Liberal Democrats have costed plans to put the passenger first."

The thought of putting a passenger before the corporation providing the service is ridiculous, and dictating the prices that corporation can charge for its services sounds rather anti-free market, doesn't it?

On Equal Rights;

"We also recognise that though they are not a minority, women continue to receive a raw deal."

If you listen carefully, you can almost hear Rush Limbaugh freaking out over the heretical concept of gender equality.

The Lib-Dems also released the details of their agreement with Cameron and the Conservatives, and in it are more than a few subtle rebukes of the assertion that this coalition was going to be a harbinger of any Conservative Ascendancy, certainly not the likes that Matt Drudges fantasizes about.

The statement on the agreement reads, in part:

"We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere."

Wait. What?  Isn't it supposed to be the other way around?

"The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain's nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.  We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament."

The mere thought of any type of disarmament or questioning the 'value' of a nuclear system is playing right into the terrorists hands according to Facebook Sarah and the 'bomb-baby-bomb' crowd.

"(We agree on) mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle"

Mandating means FORCING businesses to comply.  In America, conservatives call that meddling in private enterprise.  I can hear it now, the National Association Grease Monkeys will cry about how this will saddle them with burdensome expenses , and that Liberal Plug-In Police enforcement will throw those who refuse in jail.....TYRRANY!!

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

Uh, oh....John Roberts isn't going to like that one.

"We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.  We agree that a banking levy will be introduced."

Bonus limits? Banking taxes??  Holy shit, who wrote this Obama??

There's lots more, but what is clear from these short excerpts is that politics in England is far different than politics here in America despite the shared labels, and that the new government of the UK will not be nearly as conservative as neo-cons here in the USA believe or would like to see.  





msny 05.12.10