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

THE DRUDGE DODGE...OR, HOW TO AVOID THE OBVIOUS...

From May 2, 2010





Anyway you parse it, you can tell that the GOP didn't have a good day yesterday.  The evidence was right there this morning if you looked at Matt Drudge's page.  Instead of crowing his little head off, the neo-con cheerleader and Murdoch toady's page features groundbreaking coverage of an Administration plot to stifle free speech by silence the tweets of the White House chef...GASP!

And the other important 'above the fold' breaking news included;  "(the) Race to 'downplay glamor (misspelled) of state dinner'..."  How could they?  And, "BAN LIFTED: Will allow one reporter to see dinner set up in East Room 'for few minutes'..."  I love the capitalization callout of "BAN LIFTED," as if there was some secret agenda to keep the flower arrangements a secret.

There was also an insightful ditty that Drudge re-titled; "'Green ceviche with cucumber... Mole has 28 ingredients in it'. "  NO!  Not 28 ingredients!  Holy smokes.  Did you know that Che Guevara was born in 1928??  Coincidence?  I think not.

Now the Democratic establishment may not have done very well, but you can bet that had the Republicans won in the only actual election yesterday - the one they repeatedly referred to as a 'bellwether,' the 12th congressional district in Pennsylvania -  that Drudge would have proclaimed  it a referendum on Obama and the Democrats, complete with his signature bold, red type and sirens.  But since a Democrat won John Murtha's old seat, the report was buried below a story about the scandalous 'lesbian' song that Ellen Degeneres picked for an American Idol contestant to sing.



msny 05.18.10

WHO LET ALL THIS RIFF-RAFF INTO THE ROOM?

April 27, 2010

Immigration analysts are rightly concerned that illegal immigration is a huge problem in the USA.  Republicans have called the issue a "crisis," while simultaneously arguing that the "crisis" shouldn't be addressed until 2012.  I wonder why?







Arizona recently reacted to this "crisis" by passing it own legislation that calls for law enforcement to stop, detain and question  individuals that they might "reasonably suspect" is in the country illegally, and ask them for paperwork to definitively prove their status.  Many people think this legislation has gone too far and will lead to ethnic profiling, something that has been deemed unconstitutional.  

Some people allege that laws like the one enacted in Arizona are racist by nature.  Conservative supporters of this law argue against this point and stress that the law is designed to weed out ALL undocumented aliens.
Since this is the case, we should not limit ourselves to the undocumented aliens from Mexico, Central and South America.  The difficult part is; How do we determine exactly who is legal and who is illegal??  What does an undocumented alien look like?

Well, the Department of Homeland Security states that about 70% of all undocumented aliens come from Mexico, Central and South America.  The other 30% - about 3.1 MILLION PEOPLE - are obviously from other parts of the world.  THAT'S A LOT OF ILLEGALS.

Someone told me that I couldn't understand the problem since I didn't live in Arizona, but I do live in New York and according to the Department of Homeland Security, New York ranks HIGHER than Arizona in the number of Undocumented Aliens living in the state.

Anyway, Undocumented Aliens do not simply consist of aliens that enter the country illegally.  According to the ACLU which reviewed the statistics; "The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that roughly 250,000 - 300,000 immigrants take up residence here each year without permission. Half of these immigrants enter with valid temporary visas but overstay the authorized time. The other half, only 125,000 to 150,000 enter illegally.

John McCain was quoted only yesterday as saying that the "borders of the US are broken," and that Arizona was FORCED to act.  He thinks the law is a good idea.  Interestingly in 2008, McCain said that there were "50,000 Irish men and women in this country illegally who want to become citizens'' and that "we have to give them a path to citizenship."

I'm not sure if McCain is implying that undocumented aliens from Mexico, Central and South America (or anywhere else for that matter) DO NOT "want to become citizens'' or why McCain now opposes entertaining legislation in Congress to "give them a path to citizenship."  I don't believe it's just because McCain is Irish, do you?

Anecdotally, most of these fine, hardworking Irish men and women live on the east coast, many of them in and around New York.  One of them (aided by an able, yet also undocumented Mexican) makes one of the meanest Shepherd's Pie I've ever had.  But that's not the point.

50,000 Illegals is 50,000 Illegals.  It's not about the number or race of these illegals, it's about respecting the law, right?  Supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should therefore logically support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears "Irish" as well.

The ACLU also reports that Italians make up the "second largest group of the undocumented aliens in New York State."  Naturally, supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should then support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears "Italian" as well.

The Urban Institute recently estimated that there were "between 65,000 and 75,000 Canadians currently living in the United States illegally.  Therefore it is reasonable to assume that supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should also support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears "Canadian" as well.

In fact, The Department of Homeland Security reports that there are over 750,000 Europeans in this country illegally.  750,000!!  That's a lot!  And its not like these Europeans are out in the fields picking oranges or standing outside of the Home Depot seeking work as manual laborers, these people are (presumably) engaged in lawful work - work that is likely being taken away from U.S. Citizens who might otherwise want these jobs, right?

Now, let's just use some of the same mathematics that the leading Fair and Balanced conservatives are using.  Homeland Security reports that there are 10.5 million Undocumented Aliens living in this country illegally.  Most conservative critics say that it is impossible to accurately make that claim.  Lou Dobbs, has pegged the number at about 12 million, and estimates from news sites spanning the political spectrum range as high as 25 million.

So the number of Illegal European aliens could be anywhere from 20% to 150% MORE than the Homeland Security total.  That means the total could be anywhere from 900,000 to 1,875,000 Illegal Europeans in this country.  YIKES.  I wonder if any of these Illegal Europeans ever need hospital care, and where they go if they do.  It stands to reason that supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears generally "European" too.
There are also well over 1.25 MILLION Asians in the country illegally, including Chinese, Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, Thai, and Indonesian, among others.   This leads me to believe that supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should in fact, also support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears generally "Asian." 

The statistics also show that there are approximately 1 MILLION Africans and people of Middle Eastern origin in the United States illegally.  In addition, recent conservative estimates are that there are 200,000 illegal Haitians in the USA.  Again, logic would dictate that supporters of tough anti-illegal immigration legislation should then support directives that allow law enforcement stop and question anyone who appears generally "African,"  "Middle-Eastern," or "Haitian" as well as the aforementioned "Irish," "Italians," "other "Europeans," "Canadians," and "Asians."

So logically the fairest way to enforce a law like this would be that EVERYONE should be regularly stopped, detained (with handcuffs if necessary) and required to provide definitive proof of citizenship status regardless of their race, color, or creed, right?

After all it's not about the RACE of the Illegals or the NUMBER of Illegals.  It is the fact that they are in the country ILLEGALLY right?  And if you are NOT illegal, why would you have a problem having to prove it wherever and whenever a police officer asks you to?

Maybe the police can just say; "Zeigen sie mir Ihre papiere. Schnell!"

I wonder if that would make the tea-baggers happy?

MSNY 04.27.10

HIGH SEAS SOCIALISM

From:  April 23, 2010, 2:42PM

By just about every measure, the Transocean oil rig explosion is a tragedy.  For the families of the crew members lost it is a terrible tragedy, for the environment of the gulf area which has already seen hundreds of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel spilled and possibly millions of crude spilled it is a calamity, and for the taxpayers of the United States of America who are footing the bill of a costly search and rescue, and pollution containment operation it is a travesty.

According to the Coast Guard, significant assets have been on-scene since the explosion occurred at just after 10pm local time, on Tuesday April 20, 2010.  Among them are;

Coast Guard Cutter Cobia and crew.
Coast Guard Cutter Zephyr and crew.
Coast Guard Cutter Pelican and crew.
Coast Guard Cutter Coho and crew.

AND

One MH-65 Dolphin rescue helicopter and crew.
One HC-144 Ocean Sentry rescue plane and crew.

ALSO INVOLVED IN THE EFFORTS;

Members from the Coast Guard National Strike Force. -   (deployed for ongoing and potential pollution response include dispersant airplanes, HOSS (High Volume Offshore Skimming System) barges, oil spill skimming vessels, and ancillary equipment and personnel as necessary.)

AND

Officials from The Department of the Interior
Officials from The U.S. Minerals Management Service.

AND

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has already begun making contingency plans to protect public and private properties should there be any Crude Oil spillage making landfall along the Louisiana, Alabama, or Mississippi coast lines.

ALL OF THESE assets are brought to you by the Federal Government of the United States of America, and are paid for by hard working Americans.

While the cost of the search, rescue, recovery, damage mitigation, and investigation cannot yet be determined, the cost will certainly be in the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Conservative estimates are  that the cost of operating Coast Guard search and rescue planes alone are over $4300 per hour, rescue helicopters at over $4400 per hour, and Coast Guard Cutters at over $1500 per hour.  Add to this the wages of the Coast Guard personnel, those of the Coast Guard National Strike Force ,and the wages of the Interior department personnel and those agents of the Minerals Management Service and you can be pretty sure that the price tag to the taxpayer will be steep.

Somehow those who are yelling about abolishing the Federal Income Tax aren't complaining about this expenditure. 

Hypocrites.


MSNY 04.23.10

SHOCK! GRAVITY, A HOAX?

From:  April 22, 2010, 11:37AM

BREAKING NEWS - URGENT

Just in time for Earth Day.

Climate change theorists took a beating in the press after being exposed for what critics called exaggerations and falsehoods, and now just in time for Earth Day, another shocking scandal is threatening to explode.

New letters recently uncovered, and purportedly written by the gardener of famed English scientist Sir Isaac Newton, have thrown the conservative blogosphere into a tizzy with the apparent admission that his groundbreaking work on gravity was a fraud.

Conservative critics are blasting the so-called scientific community for accepting without question the 320 year old concept of Universal Gravitation first articulated by Newton in 1687.

The top-rated, decidedly non-mainstream, nationally syndicated Radio talk show host, and de-facto leader of the Republican party, Rush Limbaugh was particularly apoplectic upon hearing the news and angrily accused liberals of hatching a plan to bilk the public out of millions of dollars with "voodoo weight-loss schemes," He lashed out at Jenny Craig for helping to propagate the 'myth' of obesity. Limbaugh lambasted Newton, saying "Are we supposed to trust a man that had just been hit in the head by a flying object? I don't think so."

The letter, which was recently authenticated by document specialist, Orly Taitz appears contradict the popular story of Newton's epiphany under an apple tree. In the letter, Newton's personal gardener, who was also the head groundskeeper at Cambridge University in England, claims to have thrown the apple at Newton to protest Newton's failure to publicly reject science and embrace the Lord. The letter details how the Spirit of the Lord sent the apple down from the tree specifically for the man to pick up and hurl at the famed scientist in order to punish him.

Limbaugh reasoned that since there was no gravity, there could therefore be no such a thing as weight making it impossible for someone to be overweight. "We are what we are." He said. "That's the way God made us, and to try to change God's vision of mankind is heresy, an assault on religion and part of an ongoing socialist, atheist plot to kill Jesus."

Calling gravity a farce, prominent republican thinker and Facebook philosopher, Sarah Palin declared that after her own exhaustive Biblical research, she had concluded that Newton's influential theories were 'jibber-jabber' intended to line the pockets of the 'liberal elite.' She noted that there was simply no credible evidence to support the claim. She continued to point that it was a 'proven fact' that gravity did not, in fact even exist, and that only through the power of the Lord are humans being kept from flying off into space. Palin explained that on clear nights she could see thousands of stars in the heavens from her home in Wasilla, and if there was some sort of 'magic gravitationality' [sic] those stars would have fallen into the earth long ago. Dismissing the entire notion of Gravity, Palin lumped the concept in with other "phony hooey-dooey scams" like "Dinosaurs, Swine Flu, and Islam."

Glenn Beck, dedicated an entire week's worth of coverage to Gravity-gate, which he explained was definitive proof of the further erosion of the Christian values in America. "Now Obama and his Czars are trying to tell us that Jesus never ascended to Heaven because it is physically impossible? Who are they fooling, folks??"

Beck went on to connect the Weight Watchers organization to an elaborate conspiracy to deny the existence of Christ. He also said that Weight Watchers was a socialist arm of the Obama administration beset with corruption and dubbed it "ACORN for fatties."  He went on to add."The libs trying to tell us that gravity is a law. I don't see it in the constitution, but Barry Hussein and his cronies want us to be forced to follow their so-called law of gravity!! These monsters," he said, wiping away tears, "are trying to keep honest Americans down...literally!" Beck then produced a chart which he said de-coded a secret message hidden in the word "GRAVETY" [sic] that proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the almost universally excepted principle of physics is a myth. The chart is shown below.


G = Greedy


R = Racist


A = Athiest


V = Vultures


E = Enthusiastically


T = Taking


Y = Your freedom


Beck echoed the emerging conservative meme that only God is to be credited for keeping life from being flung off of the planet. Beck also exhorted parents of school children to shred any school textbook that even mentions the word gravity, and he urged his viewers to instead buy gold from one of his shows remaining advertisers as a show of their liberty and devotion to God.  Beck did save some kind words for the "former heredical Jew" Newton, whom Beck announced proudly, had converted to Mormanism in 2006.

This reporter is following this BREAKING SCANDAL closely and will continue to update readers on any future findings.

DO THE Murdoch / Rove Neo-Cons really want to see the GOP win the Oval Office, or are they happier making money??

April 16, 2010, 3:53PM

 

 

I first mentioned the following during the '08 election cycle and I think it's still very important to note.   The Neo-Cons are destroying the Republican Party from within - not that I mind - and they don't even care.

Despite the reports of the imminent resurgence of the GOP and the impending demise of the Democratic Party, traditional GOP'ers should still be very, very worried about the future of their party.  They offer no solutions to any of the countries woes, and many of their celebrity infotainers refuse to even accept that there are problems at all with the course their party is taking.

As the Neo-Conned rejoice over the recent spate of Democratic announced retirements, or as Matt Drudge screamed recently, 'THE EXODUS' I would like to point out that there are currently MORE REPUBLICANS RETIRING THAN DEMOCRATS!

IN FACT, 6 republican Senators are not seeking re-election, while only 5 Democrats a doing the same.   AND 19 republican House members are also throwing in the towel as opposed to 16 Democrats.

To be fair, many of the retiring Republicans are in solid-red states and districts and the chances of them flipping aren't very good. Still one has to wonder why Drudge or Fox haven't spoken at all about the Republican 'EXODUS' as much as it has the Democrat's??

Maybe it's because more than a few of the retiring Republicans can be considered moderates in comparison to the Flying Monkeys that have been patrolling the skies for Reich Marshall Murdoch and his gang.

Even though the party officially rejected a purity test for their representatives, Fox and company are constantly defining their image of the perfect Neo-Conservative and instructing their viewers on who to support and who not to.  Some of these retiring moderates can clearly read the writing on the wall, and can see that the GOP is headed in a disastrous direction regardless of whether they pull of another 1994-esque 'revolution' in congress.

I said it during the primaries when dimwits like Rudy Julie-Annie, and Bullwinkle Palin were running around praising 'Real Americans' while condemning everyone else.

The Flying Monkey brigade succeeded in dividing the party in 2008 when their leaders pilloried old, senile, and decrepit, John McCain and publicly announced that their ranks should shun him.  In McCain's defense, it is clear the dementia had already set in, so it would be unfair to disparage his decision to embrace the insanity by placing Saracuda Palin on the ticket with him.  But his handlers should have known better.  Oh well.  His loss, Palin's gain.  There's a chance that McCain can be ousted by a Tea-Bagger this cycle.  How much of an irony would that be.  McCain gave birth to the Tea-Bag Queen and now she's helping the Tea-Baggers bury McCain.  -Yeah, yeah. I know she appeared at a rally for the Maverick  I mean Non-maverick.  But every other word out of her mouth these days is Tea-Party this and Tea-Party that.  She may be holding hands with Mac, but she's in bed with Hayworth.  How else can one explain the man who overwhelmingly won Arizona in 2008 (and 2002) leading the Tea-Bag candidate by single digits?

But my question for today is;  Do the Murdoch / Rove Neo-Cons really want to see the GOP win the Oval Office, or are they happier making money as the opposition?  I mean,  It's clearly more profitable, and easier telling people what to do, than actually doing it yourself.

As I noted recently in another post, David Frum was very succinct in his observation; "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we're discovering we work for Fox." 

The hysterical Murdoch media machine is reaping humongous profits from sowing panic among the Neo-conservative faithful.  It seems logical that they would wish to see those profits continue to pour in.  And that philosophy has spread to high profile Republican rock stars who enjoy the greatest celebrity and name recognition.  Clearly profit trumps participation.

Regardless, it says a great deal when those who are recognized as 'leaders' of the Neo-Conservative 'movement' have no actual interest in seeking higher office to lead and affect change, but rather prefer to simply make a profit by lying and fear-mongering.

Among these 'leaders' are;

Michael Steele - Rapper Extraordinaire, fee-based motivational speaker, psychic, and author.  Steele launched a book tour to promote the Republican brand, himself.    Of his book, he hilariously tries to claim it was written in 2008, BEFORE he became the head of the RNC despite referring to himself as CHAIRMAN, and to the then yet-to-be-elected Barack Obama as PRESIDENT numerous times.  Steele and his cronies have lived the highlife, chartering private jets, staying at 5-star hotels and enjoying the highest quality simulated lesbian bondage available in West Hollywood.

Newt Gingrich - Shamed ex Speaker of the House, fee-based motivational speaker, history re-interpreter, and author.  Newt's a busy man.  He 'authored' not one, not two, but THREE books in 2008 that he's been pushing lately.  Moreover Newton Leroy Gingrich has written NO LESS THAN 14 books on the subject of government in America - FOURTEEN!  Any bibliography of Gingrich would be incomplete without the mention of 'Gettysburg: A Novel of the Civil War'  an 'alternative history' novel where Gingrich fantasizes about a Confederate victory at Gettysburg.  Yikes!

Sarah Palin - Former partial-term governor, fee-based motivational speaker, fashion icon and author.  Sarah didn't want to be encumbered by actually serving as an elected official in order to affect change for the people of Alaska, so she went 'Rogue,' left Alaska, and embarked on a tour of 'Real America.'   When Sarah isn't busy offering complex political position papers 144 characters at a time on Twitter, she's praising Jesus for helping her enter the field she's just exited.   She's also signed a lucrative contract to be a 'contributor' to the Fox Infotainment / News Channel where she has 'contributed' to Fox's 'fair and balanced' coverage of current affairs by pretending to interview people she's never actually spoken with. And in the most recent example of Sarah's commitment to the real people of America, Sarah is in negotiations to star in a reality television show where its said she will command a six-figure per episode salary.   Word is that Sarah receives over $100,000.00 in fees for speaking engagements, including first-class accommodations for her and her entourage.  In one glaring case of her true motivations trumping her faux political beliefs, Sarah recently spoke to the Wine & Spirit Wholesalers of America Convention in Las Vegas.  Someone noted rather hilariously that nothing says 'family values' better than liquor and gambling.

It's being reported that she banked over 12 MILLION DOLLARS in 2009 since exiting politics.   Thank goodness she didn't sell out.

Dick Cheney - former Vice President, fee-based motivational speaker, draft dodger (he had other priorities,) Incubus, and author.  Cheney didn't want to be president in 2008, why would he now?  He's having far too much fun standing on the sidelines complaining that the turd he dropped on America still stinks.

Glenn Beck, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh - What do a Mormon, a Jew and a Dope Fiend have in common?  Sounds like the start of a bad joke, doesn't it?  Ahh, but the joke is on us, people.  All of these men make tens of millions of dollars writing books on HOW to 'fix' America, but not one of them has any intention to actually participate.  Neo-con pundits are eager to point out that the public can learn a lot from what these men have to teach.  You know the saying ;  'Those who can, do.  And those who can't......teach.'

Glenn Beck - fee based motivational speaker, tear factory and author.  Beck found the time to write and publish 3 books in 2009 alone for the Republican publishing house of Matlin and Cheney, I mean Simon and Schuster.  Like Beck, Mark Levin also contributed a best seller to Mary Matlin's library of venom, but sadly neither are willing to take a pay cut to serve their nation in any elected capacity.   Beck made a whopping 32 MILLION DOLLARS in 2009.  14 MILLION DOLLARS last year in book revenue alone and was quoted by Forbes for their current issue as saying this about his 'brand'; "I could give a flying crap about the political process. ... We're an entertainment company."  

A self-defined Libertarian, Beck, has to his credit figured out an even more direct way to make a profit from his weepy-eyed fear-mongering style -  GOLD!   Like a true American snake-oil salesman, Beck's Medicine Show peddles the elixir for financially fear-stricken patriots by stoking paranoia about the impending demise of the American currency.  He says he really believes that the Dollar is dying, but I wonder if Goldline dot com is paying Beck in Gold or greenbacks for his hard work.  I suspect he really prefers dollars.

Mark Levin - fee based motivational speaker, radio personality and author.  Levin should be credited with helping to educate Americans about the dangers of Statism.  Levin was one of the first to say that calling the President a Socialist wasn't accurate.  In fact, according to Levin, Obama is a Communist AND a Fascist!  Good thing no one ever told Hitler and Stalin that the Nazis and the Soviets were birds of a feather.  And it sort of makes me wonder what Hitler was going on and on about in Mien Kampf while he was railing against the Communists.

Rush Limbaugh - fee based motivational speaker, failed baseball executive, radio personality, heroin addict, and author.  Rush is the Neo-Con Babe Ruth at the end of his career to Beck's Gherig.  Rush hold up in a luxury bunker in West Palm Beach while Beck, Oreilly, Hannity and his other spawn tour the nation lining their pockets.  Unfortunately Rush hasn't written a book in 15 years, but I must give him a pass since nearly half of all heroin addicts relapse within 12 years of kicking, so I'm sure Rush can't bang out another Neo-Con manifesto with white knuckles and the shakes.

Levin and Limbaugh, the Merriam and Webster of modern Neo-con terminology are to be thanked for accurately connecting nefarious plots like 'saving the planet' and 'women's rights' with their evil forbearers by coining great words like Enviro-Statist, and Femi-Nazi.  If only American's had been educated about Comrade Susan B. Anthony before the insufferable suffrage movement had stricken a blow to liberty.  Thankfully Reich Marshall Albert Speer Gore has been exposed for his polar bear advocating anti-Americanism.

So, who's left for the Grand Obstructionist Party to rally behind?   Here are some of names mentioned most often;

Mike Huckabee - fee-based motivational speaker, pastor, weight loss guru, and of course, author.  Huck has a cushy job at Neo-Con headquarters aka Fox News, so it's unlikely he'll give up his infotainment gig when he only has to work 60 minutes a day, just to get a full time job.

Mitt Romney - fee-based motivational speaker, former Governor,  Health Care mandate proponent, and author.  Can the GOP choice really be Big Love Romney, the man who carpet-bagged his way through Massachusetts and dropped off Romney-care before reading the writing on the tea-bag and sprinting away from his signature legislation?  It's likely he'll try to win the GOP nomination in 2012 if he can wipe the seamy leftovers from his affair with socialism of off his designer duds in time.  I doesn't help that Mitt was recently labeled as a 'Socialist' on-air by Glenn Beck, so it's hard to see him being embraced by the Beck worshipping Tea-Baggers.  Romney beat Ron Paul by ONE VOTE at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference and that was after buying hundreds of tickets for delegates with the Evangelicals for Romney contingent

In the meantime, Romney is hedging bets by becoming the latest conservative scribe, penning his own 'do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do' manifesto and embarking on a tour to promote his book and make a few bucks while he's at it.

John Thune - Senator, Neo-Con darling, fee based motivational speaker.  Thune has not yet authored a book, but look for that to happen before the first 2012 presidential straw poll in Iowa. Thune rose to fame, defeating Tom Daschle in the most expensive Senate race in the history of South Dakota by relentlessly criticizing Daschle as the 'Chief Obstructionist' of George W Bush's agenda.  But apparently he learned a lot from Daschle.  He's since voted in lock-step with the Republican leadership, actively supporting and praising the obstructionism of the GOP, which has included preventing over 70 Obama nominees from being confirmed.

Bobby Jindal - LOL.  Really?  Does anyone expect that this is realistic?  Jindal's disastrous rebuttal to the State of the Union last year pretty much sealed his fate.

Tim Pawlenty - Republican Governor, dutiful GOP soldier, fee based motivational speaker.  Pawlenty's biggest accomplishments to date have been stepping aside for more popular Republicans in the name of the party.  First Darth Cheney asked him to step aside for Norm Colman before Coleman lost to Wellstone, then McCain asked him to step aside for Sarah Palin ( I wonder how many times T-Paw has said 'I told you so.' to McCain.)

Despite being a staunch conservative, Pawlenty finished dead last in this year's CPAC straw polls, more than 20 percentage points behind Ron Paul.  T-Paw had only 18 more votes than Rick Santorum(!) at the SRLC meeting and he was crushed again by Paul, losing by 21 percentage points.  This brings us to:

Ron Paul - Republican congressman, fee based motivational speaker, Libertarian darling, and author.  Ahh Ron Paul.    Paul has authored no less than 19 books in his lifetime while contributing to an additional 13 or so works. He earned the enmity of loyal Neo-cons in by voting against authorizing President Bush to commence the Iraq war, and then again to repeal the war authorization in 2003.  It would seem to be more than a little Ironic that Paul would become such a favorite of conservatives.  In fact, Paul won the CPAC straw poll this year, beating out all of the above mentioned GOP heavyweights, in what can only be seen as a slap in the face to the Republican establishment.

In another bit of comic irony , Paul, a TEN TERM! congressman has long supported and campaigned for TERM LIMITS, yet it is unclear why he himself chooses to continue to run.  Paul's most recent tome 'End The Fed' is currently a rallying cry for the tea-baggers.  The chances of Ron Paul ever clinching the GOP nomination are slim to none, but given the current political atmosphere could there be a giant tea-bag in his future as the Ralph Nader of the Right?

Others will emerge between now and Iowa 2012, but while the near term may look rosy for the GOP, in the long term unless someone bucks the party establishment and the Murdoch sound and fury factory the prospects for the future of the party actually look dim. And for this, maybe we can thank Uncle Rupert.

MSNY 04.16.10

APPARENTLY THE NEO-CONNED DO BELIEVE IN SOCIALISM AND CORPORATE WELFARE - JUST NOT ON EARTH.

 April 14, 2010, 3:42PM

Where are the Tea-Bagged when you need them?


Apparently, the Neo-Conned actually do believe in Socialism and corporate welfare - just not on Earth.

This morning I read the Fox News article  entitled  "Armstrong and Obama Spar Over NASA'S Future"

It was about Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Gene Cernan's open letter regarding what is actually a BUDGET INCREASE for NASA, so I half-expected to see Fox's standard Tea-bag screed about more of the on-going government takeover of everything free and wholesome.  I expected Drudge to wail about Obama wanting to control space too.

I expected to see Sarah Palin post a facebook message like this;

To all those Hopey-Changey folks out there whining about the possible cancellation of NASA's Constellation program, the five-year-old effort to replace the aging space shuttle fleet with new rockets I say SHUT UP YOU GOSH DARN COMMIES.

If you want a 'Nationalized' space program GO TO CHINA! 
The Patriots of the USA believe in Capitalism and Free Market economics.  As many people have said recently, the private sector can and already DOES achieve greater results at far cheaper prices than the colossally inefficient 'National' Aeronautics and Space Agency.  National means government-run and that's just not the American way.
Everyone who agrees that the private - for profit - medical industry  is better than any government controlled version, must surely also agree that the private - for profit - space industry is also better than a public one and more in line with the founding principles of this great nation. Right?
Why do taxpayer dollars have to go to help private corporations launch their satellites into orbit?   Do those corporations share their profits with the taxpayers?  NO WAY!

Boy, I couldn't have been more wrong.  But I was left wondering why Sarah's Real Americans aren't outraged that Obama wants to increase spending - AGAIN? 
I mean, the great tea-bagged masses are fuming about everything from health care reform to school lunches. How is this issue any different from any other?
There are those so speak of the discoveries that were reaped in space, and to be sure there are many, like satellite communications, cellular technology, GPS,  weather tracking and forecasting and on and on.  But before we get all Red, White and Blue in the face, let's also remember that we, the taxpayers funded much of the efforts that have yielded untold riches for private enterprise. 
Many of us have GPS in our cars today, thanks to NASA and the US military, but products like Tom Tom and On-Star are making millions of dollars for the corporations that manufacture them.  Sure, I can locate the nearest Starbucks from just about anywhere on Earth with my phone, but I pay hundreds of dollars a year to AT&T for that privilege.  How much of that ever goes back to the taxpayers that pay for NASA to give discount rides into orbit for AT&T's satellites?   Google Maps is great, but without NASA putting those satellites up there, there would be no Google Maps, would there?
I'd like to address the open letter published by Neil Armstrong that the right-wing media are getting their Depends in a bunch over.  Firstly, the suggestion that Armstrong is 'Blasting' the President is a tad overstated to say the least.  But, it gets eyes on the page, and that is the real point, not what Armstrong actually says.
Here is what Armstrong did say;

"When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit."

So, to recap, Armstrong is saying that there will be an INCREASE in total funding, albeit, in his opinion a 'slight' increase.   He also states that the new budget contains 'substantial' funding for developing new technologies and the privatization of the space industry while shift MORE dollars to exploration. 
Armstrong is noting that NASA'S budget is INCREASING.  It is, in fact, increasing by NEARLY THE SAME AMOUNT that is was increased during the last years of the Bush Administration.  Moreover, between 2005 and 2006 NASA'S budget was actually reduced by nearly 500 MILLION dollars.   Can you imagine the hysteria if Obama wanted to REDUCE NASA'S budget?  Can anyone recall the right wing media even mentioning the budget cuts in 2005?
Oh, yeah.  That was back when speaking out against a President was treason.
Armstrong also said this;

"Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating."

Devastating.  --  That one word is the basis for the Flying Monkeys to say that Armstrong was BLASTING the President.
But on further investigation, is this really a devastating thing to do?  What Armstrong fails to mention here is that a) the Orion spacecraft has NOT been scrapped, and more importantly b) the Constellation project is massively over budget and plagued with technical problems.  There were HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in budget overruns 2008 and 2009 and those numbers are expected to be much larger, according to space industry trade publication Universe Today.

"The 117-page  (NASA) report shows an $80 million cost overrun this year for just one motor and a dozen different technical problems that the space agency put in the top risk zone, meaning the problems are considered severe. The report put the program's financial performance in that category, as well."

Severe?? How devastating would it be if one of those technical problems caused the loss of the lives of astronauts?
Why doesn't the Neo-Con media highlight this?  Why wouldn't the Flying Monkeys express concern that a dozen technical issues were considered by NASA to be 'top-risk' problems?    Why wouldn't they comment on that?
I'm not trying to discount what Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan said - and they have some valid points, but I am (once again) questioning the highly partisan right wing media machine that grabs hold of anything and everything they can to bash the President.  If the hero, Armstrong BLASTS Obama, then Obama MUST be evil - and that is the REAL point of the article.
I'll even buy the argument that Neil Armstrong can say anything he wants on the issue, as he was the first man on the moon, a national hero and an icon, since that would imply that the second man on the moon, also a national hero, icon and celebrity dancing star can weigh in too.  Here's what Buzz Aldrin said;

"A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century,"

So, these two traveled to the moon together and have different perspectives on this issue.  But what they do agree on is that what is happening is that the President is INCREASING spending, by investing 'substantial' funding into research on 'cutting-edge technologies.'
But, it's not even about the astronauts, its about the glaring hypocrisy of the right wing media machine that is perpetually hysterical and misleading these days.  I'm certain that if Glenn Beck hasn't sobbed over the impending loss of America's preeminence in space he soon will, and a whole lot of people won't understand what is actually happening. 

MSNY 04.14.10