Starving the Beast Just Makes Us All Hungry

Okay, that’s it. I’ve had it, and you should be sick of this crap, too.

As noted, President Bush decided to turn the tragedy in Minneapolis into a political hammer, and tried to beat Democrats in the head with it, by suggesting that Democrats want to tax you into the poorhouse, and that such "fiscal irresponsibility" is just wrong.

This is for the Bushies and every other wingnut out there!

You’re DONE! NO MORE!

We’ve allowed the assholes to run this country into the ground for more than a quarter century and I, for one, am sick to death of it.

Look, folks; we live in a capitalist democracy, which means that everything costs money. EVERYTHING!

That’s a fact. I know a lot of people don’t want to believe that, but there is no choice. We all pay for everything, and I mean everything. Well, that’s not true; with the fiscally irresponsible Republican right in charge, we’ve passed along much of the cost of everything to future generations. That’s right, you idiots; because of your goddamn obsession with tax cuts of every kind, your shaving 4.9 cents from the gas tax, just because Bill Clinton and the democrats passed it, is money that your kids will have to pay later.

For a generation now, since the day Ronald Reagan took office, this country has been taken over by an ideology obsessed with two things; government incompetence and taxes. They are dead certain that tax rates should approach zero; at least for the rich, and they are equally certain that everything the government touches turns to shit. What’s worse is that they are bound and determined to prove this self-fulfilling prophecy beyond a shadow of a doubt, by cutting taxes on the rich, thus making them even more rich, while borrowing the rest of us into economic oblivion, and populating the government with incompetent dorks, to prove that government sucks.

If you want to know why our pets have been dying from tainted pet food, why the incidences of food-borne illnesses have been rising, why the victims of hurricanes and terrorist attacks can’t get help, and why bridges collapse, look at the current incarnation of the Republican Party, and their Democratic enablers, who are afraid of being labeled "tax-and-spend liberals."

I hate to be the one to break it to this idiots, but "tax and spend" is exactly how things are supposed to work! The government has traditionally built infrastructure and the economy has benefited from it. It’s always been that way, because that way makes the most sense. Why, you ask? Because of a little thing the right wing pays lip service, but little else, to; Accountability.

It’s this simple, folks; government is accountable to us, while private industry is not. Since the right wing started this incessant drive toward "privatizing" every damn thing, we have seen a deterioration in service in damned near every sector. We contract out everything these days. There are no more city or state work crews out there building roads and bridges; instead, we farm out the work to  — are you ready for this? — the LOWEST BIDDER!  Then, the inspection process is done on the cheap, because there isn’t enough money to do it right. Roads are inspected and graded far less often, and it’s no longer a simple task to just send a construction crew out to replace the road or bridge; instead, you have to determine how much money you need, then petition the legislature for the money, then the legislature hems and haws and tries to figure out a way to fund it, then after they approve funding, the bidding process starts, and the job is offered to the lowest bidder. Not the people with the best design, or the capability of making a bridge that will last 100 years or more, regardless of the amount of traffic; but the one who can make it for less money. (Of course, they almost always go over-budget, but that’s another subject.

Why are we such cheapskates?

It’s because the ideology of the right wing is that government can only be "fiscally responsible" if you starve it financially. In other words, if you take away their tax money, the government will have to teach itself to do more with less. The problem is, we’re not talking about buying dishes and pots and pans for the family here; we’re talking about infrastructure, which everyone depends on every day. It’s the government’s goddamn JOB to inspect the food supply, to inspect the roads, bridges and tunnels; to make sure that advertised claims (you know, like "fair and balanced") are actually true. It’s spelled out in the Constitution, and it was put there for a reason. The food supply is very essential for life, and safety of the roads, bridges and tunnels are essential for the economic well-being of the country, as well as essential for life.

The Republican Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota recently rejected a gasoline tax increase of ten cents to pay for roads and transit, because he and the rest of the current incarnation of the Republican Party are viscerally opposed to tax increases that a rich person might actually have to pay. To these bozos, raising such taxes is morally wrong somehow. Imagine; at a time when gasoline is already sitting at $3 per gallon, paying ten more cents per gallon in order to beef up the transit system, which  would alleviate the traffic problem somewhat, and making sure the roads you’re driving on are safer. What the hell’s wrong with people who would think that was a good idea? Are they nuts? I think we’d all agree that such money is far better off lining the pockets of oil barons, right?

The right wing has literally sold this country down the river, folks in the years since 1981, when Ronald Reagan first took office, and the wingnuts first tasted power. They’ve reduced taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the working and middle classes, and effectively reduced the tax base, by giving rich corporations tax incentives to move plants offshore.

You see, most people don’t mind paying taxes, as long as they’re getting a good value for their money. But "good value" isn’t necessarily synonymous with "the cheapest," which is the right wing’s biggest mistake.

Why are we trusting our infrastructure to "the LOWEST BIDDER"? If you live in the eastern part of the country, you have probably come across sidewalks, roads and bridges stamped "WPA." Where I am, there are sidewalks stamped "WPA" and "1934" all over the area. Except for a few areas of sidewalks where tree roots have raised the sidewalk and it needs replacement, all of this stuff is still intact. It was done with pride, and with less of a concern as to cost. Compare that with the constant, never-ending paving and resurfacing of city streets and highways that goes on these days.

It’s our tax money; shouldn’t we expect the best job, rather than the lowest bid? If a bridge is going to experience hundreds of thousands of cars and trucks over it every single day, shouldn’t we be more concerned with making sure it’s well-built and will last for 100 years, instead of simply looking to the lowest bidder?

And yet, that’s the right wing Republican concern. It’s the Wal-Mart mentality on a governmental scale. Think about it; there is nothing wrong with shopping at discount stores for everyday things that you only expect to keep for a short time. If you’re cooking something, and you need a spatula and only have a dollar, you run there and pick one up. But you don’t buy prosthetic limbs at Wal-Mart. You don’t buy dentures at Wal-Mart. You wouldn’t offer your local Wal-Mart employees $10,000 to build you a house, either.

And yet, that’s exactly how the right approaches everything in government. They are paying people as little as they can get away with to build our "house," and we’re surprised when we try to put up a picture and the south wall crumbles. We can no longer afford government on the cheap. We have to reset our priorities, and we have to commit to collecting the money to pay for those priorities. haven’t you noticed how often the state repaves streets these days? Doesn’t that strike you as penny-wise and pound foolish? Wouldn’t it make more sense to build a road with materials that don’t have to be replaced every few years? And if they’re using such cheap materials on roads, what are they using on bridges and tunnels?

And it’s not just roads. There are steam pipes bursting in New York. Have you noticed the number of sink holes appearing lately? The Boston "Big Dig" tunnel lost chunks of concrete. near where I live, a pedestrian tunnel that had been declared unsafe for pedestrians collapsed onto the Baltimore Beltway a few years ago, when a vehicle carrying a tractor hit it. In Washington, DC, there is the phenomenon of exploding manhole covers.

Our infrastructure is getting old, and it needs tending. But we cannot tend to it for free. We have to pay to upgrade. This is stuff we depend on, folks. Our entire economy depends on being able to move commerce from one end of the country to the other safely and securely, and the lives of our people are too precious to risk them on unsafe roads. And if I have to explain why food safety is important, you have to be a right winger. I’ll explain why a bit later on.

Let me explode two myths here. The first one is that low taxes are good for the economy. The second one is that the government screws everything up, and the "free market" is the solution.

Let’s start with taxes. Low tax rates are just as big of a disaster as high tax rates!

The greatest economic period in this nation is absolutely, inarguably the 25 years after World War II. Throughout most of that period, the top tax rate started at 90% and ended at 70%. Now, I know what you’re thinking; that’s too high! No one should have to pay that much in taxes! You’re absolutely right; no one should lose 70% of their income. of course, no one DID have to pay that much in taxes! In fact, have you heard of the "Alternative Minimum Tax"? It was passed in 1969, because 155 of the richest families in the country paid zero tax.

Hmmm… How is it possible for the top tax rate to be 70%, yet the richest people in the country pay nothing?

Deductions. Those of you over 50 probably remember those, or at least remember your parents taking them.  The tax rate was one thing, but when you invested in the country’s economic infrastructure, you got a break on your taxes. In other words, you had to pro-actively avoid high taxes by helping to grow the economy.

Now, let’s use a little common sense, shall we?

Say you have two economies. In one, the tax rate is 70%, but with investment, the rate can be cut to 30%. In the other one, you pay 30% without doing anything. Which one of those two models is likely to feature the most investment?

In one model, the corporate tax rate is 35%, but can be cut to 15% with investments in domestic factories and jobs, while the second model gives them a tax rate of 15%, and allows them even more deductions for moving their operations overseas. Which of those two models is most likely to continue to grow the economy? This is not rocket science. This whole "trickle-down" theory is bullshit. Rich people will only risk their wealth if they are given an incentive to risk their wealth. They have to be coerced into investing in the economy. And they have to be coerced into investing in the infrastructure.

We have to raise more revenues, and the likeliest source of those revenues are those with the most money; imagine that.  And frankly, the rich should pay more. They benefit from government investment in the infrastructure as much as or more than anyone. The goods they sell travel over the same roads you, their employees, use to get to work. A good transit system gets their employees to work on time, and makes their goods move more smoothly on less-clogged roads. Their employees and assistants largely come from the public educational system. They eat the same foods that we do, they take the same medicines that we do, they depend on the same water and sewer systems that we do. They use the same court system that we do. In fact, it could be said that they get better emergency services than everyone else, but again; that’s another column for another time.

The fact is, the rich actually derive more benefit from the tax system than everyone else, so it’s difficult to make the case that they should pay less. It’s time they paid their fair share. When they did pay their fair share, the country was much better off.

Now, about that second myth; that government screws up everything, and that the "free market" works better. It doesn’t. The government may not be perfect — in fact, it most certainly is not — but it’s actually better and more accountable than the private sector. If you don’t believe me, think about this; the healthiest insured people in this country are on Medicare;  health insurance companies have created a bureaucratic morass that would put any government to shame. The only problem most seniors have is with their Part B carrier — usually a private company. Medicare pays faster and more reliably than any private insurance company, and with less hassle. And is there ANY pension plan more reliable than Social Security? How many banks would be willing to lend your kids money for college if the government didn’t guarantee the money? How many people would get mortgages for the home of their dreams without the government guaranteeing most of that money? Think FedEx or UPS could deliver a letter from New York to Alaska for 41 cents?

Again, during the greatest boom period in our history, the government led the way, not private companies! Private companies got us into the Great Depression, and government pulled us out. You see, private companies have no accountability to the public at large; their only obligation is to stockholders. But when the government does something wrong, you can write your Congressperson and at least have a fighting chance of seeing the problem fixed. "Privatization" is a joke, because there is no way the public can force a private company to do the right thing. Got it?

There is more to this, however. It’s far more than a simple disagreement over the "free market." It’s all about politics and "payback."

During the greatest boom period in our history, when we were as prosperous as any nation had ever been in human history, the Republican fought it every step of the way. They resented the New Deal, and they still resent the New Deal. They have always wanted to dismantle the New Deal, and since they have been in power, they have done a great deal of damage to it. Think about what they’ve done. They’ve tried to eliminate the minimum wage. They keep trying to dismantle wage and hour laws. They are trying to kill public works, by privatizing everything. And if you don’t think they’re trying to kill Social Security, you’re not paying attention.

It’s a simple fact that, when the Great Depression hit, and the Republican Party did nothing to combat it, it killed them for a generation. It’s also a fact that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is led by people who still insist that the government programs that make up the New Deal’s legacy are bad for us, and they want them gone.

The problem is, the government programs begun during the New Deal and expanded during the 1950s and 1960s DO WORK, and would work fine, if not for these idiots trying to kill them. And they are trying to kill them. It’s NOT just a tragic coincidence that the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed; it’s the result of a right wing ideological crusade to prove that government doesn’t work by making sure that government doesn’t work. George Bush is not the originator; he is simply the latest and most strident of a long line of Republican leaders who have tried like hell to move us back to a time before the New Deal, when the rich could do whatever they wanted, and when the country experienced a Depression (yes, I said Depression!) roughly every 20 years or so.

Now, their stated goal is to "starve" the beast, in order to make it more "fiscally responsible." But as usual, their stated goal is not their actual purpose. No, their purpose is to kill everything about the New Deal, and "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that government doesn’t work, and the "free market" does. Bush’s incompetence is purposeful; it’s his ham-handed way of proving, once and for all, that government doesn’t work, and that the New Deal has failed.

It’s time we put an end to this crap. The New Deal worked, and its aftermath was the greatest boom period ever seen. We have to roll back tax rates to where they were before the country’s economy started going south — pre-1981 would be good. We have to stop doing everything on the cheap. We have to rebuild our infrastructure, but we have to do it with an eye on making the country better, not with an eye on fattening the bank accounts of a few hand-picked rich people. Corporations are not inherently evil, but they cannot be allowed to run the country, because they have no accountability to the people.

If we can find half a trillion dollars to spend in Iraq (so far), then we can certainly find the money to spend on rebuilding the things we need to rebuild to make this country strong again. We have to; we cannot continue to allow these anti-New Deal wingnuts to run us into the ground.

Lobby THIS!

Let’s get something straight here…

Lobbyists are a fact of life, and in one form or another, they are not going away.

I agree with Sen. Clinton that there are good lobbyists out there, doing the work of the people.

But can we please cut the crap about the money not influencing anything?

Apparently, the supposed "front runner" (It’s August, folks; five months before a vote has even been cast — there are no front runners) for the Democratic nomination seems to be infected with that disease that all politicians get when they’ve been in Washington too long. Would someone please explain what relation giving money and gifts has with lobbying for a good cause? Why do these people have to take money from ANYONE for ANY reason, while serving in office?

From: Obama, Edwards Criticize Clinton – The Huffington Post.

Barack Obama and John Edwards separately castigated Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton for defending lobbyists and portrayed her as the consummate Washington insider with special interest ties.

"If you don’t think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, then I believe you’ve probably been in Washington too long," Obama said Monday. Added Edwards in an Associated Press interview: "Democratic candidates, and for that matter all candidates, should just say we’re not taking these peoples’ money anymore because it’s the way to take their power away from them, and it’s the way to bring about the change that this country needs."

If Clinton wins the nomination, of course, I’ll vote for her, but I simply cannot cast my primary vote for someone who doesn’t understand that one of the biggest problems in Washington these days is the immense corruption inside the Beltway, and that lobbyist money is a major factor when it comes to government inaction on the most important issues of our time.

I simply don’t understand where all of this comes from. Has our entire society become so corrupt that it’s now okay to say, "Well, I took lots of their money, but I didn’t do what they wanted me to. It didn’t influence my vote at all."

Doesn’t anyone see the inherent corruption in the above statement? (No, it’s not an actual quote, wingnuts; it’s a hypothetical demonstrating the prevailing attitude.)

If you take money from lobbyists, and you do what they ask, that’s the very definition of corrupt. Even if you were going to vote a certain way without the money or gift, it still gives the appearance of corruption.

But isn’t it also corrupt to take money from someone who is using the money to attempt to influence your vote, and then you don’t vote that way? Isn’t that essentially taking money under false pretenses?

Now, there is some legitimate lobbying. Sometimes, a lobbyist will take a Congressperson to a specific location, to discuss an important matter, and to show the Congressperson the problem they want solved. That’s legitimate. But to take tickets to anything, or dinner at a fancy restaurant, or cash donations, or trips that are not absolutely directly related to official business should not only be discouraged, it should be illegal. No corporate lobbyist should ever have an advantage over a group advocating for average citizens, just because they are able to spread the wealth over a greater area. And that includes a perceived advantage.

No one is saying that it should be illegal to lobby for a cause, even a commercial cause. But lobbyists are a problem, and it’s a problem that’s getting worse. They are paid more and more money, and they are buying influence all over Washington these days, and they are doing so because it WORKS, folks. When Sen. Clinton said that the money doesn’t influence her votes, she’s being disingenuous. If she’s taking money from lobbyists, it has to be influencing her; hell; the fact that she accepts money from a lobbyist buys that lobbyist additional legitimacy in the eyes of others, if nothing else. And even if it doesn’t directly influence her vote, it gives the appearance that lobbyists influence her vote.

Put it this way; she has been taking money from the Health Insurance industry for years, and in her six-plus years in the Senate, she has never brought up a bill for national universal health care, which used to be a pet project of hers, once upon a time. is there a corollary? Possibly not. It’s possible that she’s simply waiting for the right time to bring it up. But by taking the money, she has created a perception, accurate or not, that the health insurance industry is paying her to not bring up national health care again. And that perception doesn’t just affect her actions in Congress. How many other Congresspeople are hesitant about bringing up national health care because the lobbyists have "gotten to" Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Clinton is absolutely wrong on this, and Sens. Edwards and Obama are absolutely correct. if she thinks her acceptance of lobbying money has no effect on the process just because it hasn’t affected her vote, she is, to coin a phrase, naive…

Those Gullible Wingnuts!

You know, it’s really
hard to believe that some of the wingnuts actually believe much of the crap
they themselves spew, you know?

 

Take Dennis Miller.
No, seriously; take him. Please. There was a time when I found the man funny,
but Miller_3
something happened after the 9/11 terrorist attacks that simply makes him
tiresome. He would tell you that he had some sort of epiphany, where he realized
just then that terrorists really wanted to kill us, that we should kill them
first, and that George Bush was exactly what we as a country needed; someone
who talked tough about terrorism, but did nothing about it.

 

Okay, given his
current right wing persona, he wouldn’t say that last part, in part because
it’s true, but also because it would kill his latest gig on Fox Noise, as Bill
O’Reilly’s yes-man. Have you noted that Miller often hesitates before agreeing
with Bill-O, probably because he’s trying really hard to hold down his lunch.

 

You see, George W.
Bush has done absolutely nothing to stop terrorism. In fact, the scant few
terrorists who have been killed in since 9/11 — which was six years ago, folks
— were generally killed by accident. And actually, if you think about it, the
only reason we "know" those few were "terrorists" is
because the Bushies told us, so even that information is tainted to some
degree. By and large, after six years, most of al Qaeda’s leadership is holed
up safe and sound in Pakistan, while our troops — those beautiful men and
women who volunteered to fight for their country — are deployed in Iraq,
thousands of miles away from most of al Qaeda, where they are bogged down in a
botched occupation of a country in the midst of a centuries-old civil war.
There were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, and the estimated number of
al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq now is relatively small. I would also note that we
apparently haven’t been able to locate them, because, except for a dozen or so
"number 2 al Qaeda" suspects, we haven’t gotten to very many of them.

 

In other words, Dennis
Miller’s entire premise for becoming a right winger is based on faulty logic.
Which would seem to be typical right wing behavior. The problem is, Dennis
Miller had always struck me as a fairly intelligent guy before 9/11, so his conversion
into hard-right tool, which just happened to coincide with a relative dip in his career fortunes
(his performance on Monday Night Football wasn’t exactly a boost for his
career, nor was his short-lived stint on CNBC, in what ranks as the worst show
of its kind that I’ve ever tried to watch twice), seems very much like a
disingenuous attempt to dip his hands into the lucrative pockets of the
brain-dead wingnuts.

 

If my cynical analysis
of Dennis Miller’s actual motives is correct, it’s not unprecedented, of
course. I know of one liberal radio host who did very well for years, only to
be dropped when his station was purchased by a right-leaning media
conglomerate, which summarily fired him. After a couple of stints at low power
stations, he eventually found himself out of work and unable to find a gig.
Unfortunately, he had a pretty pricey lifestyle to maintain, so he had to do
something, so he began to write articles proclaiming a conversion into a Ronald
Reagan "conservative" and started feeding red meat to the right. The
result was a very lucrative deal, where he made lots of money.

 

The thing is, it was
political theater. He hadn’t really gone
to the dark side; it was all a ruse to get a job, sell books and keep the money
flowing. In fact, if you listened closely to his program, you would find that
he wasn’t really advocating the wingnut position; he was taking his liberal
position, and making it SOUND like it was a wingnut position. And the wingnuts
lapped it up, and made him a very wealthy man.

 

There are other right
wing pundits whom I suspect are simply right wing charlatans, in it for the
money. Does anyone really believe that Ann Coulter is stupid enough to believe
most of the shit that comes from her mouth on a regular basis? I’m pretty sure
she is simply mining for those right wing dollars that some soWeinersavage
freely to anyone
who can bullshit the true believers into forking it over. Michael Weiner-Savage
and David Horowitz, same thing; the only ways an extreme left winger can
possibly become an extreme right winger is either through brain damage or
exploitation, and frankly, the crap that spews forth from these two is too
obviously delivered as red meat for the wingnuts to simply be bloviations from
the tops of their pointy little heads. I have always been convinced that the vile crank Michelle Malkin is full of crap, in part because she doesn’t seem to have an original thought in her head; she just mimics other right wing tools.

 

You see, the one thing
you can count on when it comes to extremists from either side of the aisle is a
significant degree of gullibility. On the left, we’re stuck with the Nader
voters, who dreamily follow everything the guy does, and who believe that he
means everything he says, despite the fact that even Nader knows that 5% of the
vote is a tall order. Someone who will only get 5-10% of the vote can promise
every single mother a million dollars cash upon taking office, and do so
without pause, because he knows he’ll never have to deliver. Nader voters are
gullible, and Kucinich loyalists are almost as gullible, when they believe that
"all they have to do is cut off the funding" for Iraq, without
considering the number of votes available to do such a thing.

 

But the degree of
gullibility on the left is small; you won’t get more than a handful to vote for
Ron Paul, just
because he has the right position on Iraq. The level of
gullibility on the right, however is nothing short of breathtaking. Seriously,
if Fox Noise or Rush Limbaugh told their followers it was raining dollar bills
in the Arizona desert, the convoy from the redneck south would be hundreds of
miles long, and the parking lot of every Motel 6 in Arizona would be full of
rusty old pick up trucks.

 

It’s not a lack of
intelligence, exactly; that’s too easy. A lot of relatively simple minded
people don’t fall for the right wing bullshit patrol.

 

No, the problem is,
the core right wing "base" is a lot more than
"unintelligent." they have no principles, no actual morals, no
ethics, and they have no patriotism to speak of. In short, they possess none of
the traits that mark a good and honest member of decent society. They’re not
empty vessels, of course; they have heads chock full of pre-conceived notions
based on willful ignorance, coupled with a deep-seated need to have those
pre-conceived notions validated in some way. That’s the worst aspect of the
right wing, really; they are absolutely sure they’re right, even when they’re
wrong, and they shut out anything that doesn’t exactly match those
pre-conceived ignorant notions. They are so desperate for validation, they’ll
believe anything someone says, if they use the right language and throw them
the right kind of red meat at decent intervals. That’s why so many evangelicals
are right wingers; their entire religious upbringing is about having their
heads filled with pseudo-Christian garbage that has no bearing on anything in
the Bible, and they violently oppose anything that doesn’t coincide with what
they were taught when they were young children.

 

The right winger, like
the evangelical Christian, thinks that his way is the only possible way to do
everything, and that every other way is simply wrong. They can only think in
terms of black/white, up/down or right/wrong; grey is not an option.

 

That is why we
liberals have to limit the level of argumentation with these bozos. When they
make a statement in a public forum, present an argument, for the benefit of
onlookers who might see the wingnut’s statement as "true," if
unchallenged, but when you respond, and they follow by gainsaying that argument
with a completely ridiculous statement (they will), or some asinine Fox Noise
talking point, just let it go. Present facts, and let the wingnut lay his
foundation of crap; when people check the facts, they will know who’s full of
crap. Just make sure it’s not you.

 

Gullible people make
for a very lucrative market for the money hungry. Like I said; they need
validation for their beliefs, and they will buy anything that makes them feel
like they’re not the only moron who thinks a certain way. There’s a reason
Limbaugh’s listeners call themselves "dittoheads," folks. While a few
of the die-hards who were around at the beginning of the show remember how the
term originated, the vast majority of his listeners call themselves that,
because they’re paranoid robots, who long dearly to belong to a group of people
who think like they do.

 

See, that’s why CNN
and MSNBC were stupid to attempt to go after Fox Noise’s audience by trying to
imitate Fox Noise. Fox has a large audience of the gullible true believers who
keep people like Dennis Miller, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh going, and they
will never switch. They have found a propagandaLimbaughdrug
machine that tells them what
they need to hear, and they will stick with it, until such time as they start
to actually report the news for a good portion of the day. The same people will
always buy Ann Coulter’s books (although honestly, I think most of her books
are given away as premiums for membership to right wing hate sites, because I
can’t imagine these people setting foot inside of a Borders, with all of those
Harry Potter books lining the shelves), even when she calls 9/11 widows a bunch
of whores, and John Edwards every epithetic euphemism for "gay" that
she can think of. They will listen to Michael Savage, no matter how many
offensive and paranoid things he says. They will follow Bill O’Reilly off of a
cliff, no matter how many co-workers he sexually harasses, or how many falafels
he abuses. They will always listen to Rush Limbaugh, no matter how many
oxycontin he takes, how many wives he goes through, or how many times he comes
back from the Dominican Republic with boatloads of Viagra.

 

They’re not the only
ones who exploit these poor, gullible people for as much money and power as
they can get their hands on. Politicians have spent the better part of the last
40 years telling these people whatever they wanted to hear, taking their money,
and giving them pretty much nothing in return. Have you ever noticed that the
poorest states in the country just happen to be those in which right wing
politicians dominate? Notice, too, the frequency with which politicians who
rely on right wingers for power are caught with their hands in the cookie jar.
Want to know why? It’s because they know they can count on the votes of that gullible right wing to keep them in office, no matter how bad things get. Oh, gosh, that makes things so much easier, doesn’t it? When you have a block of voters who doesn’t give a damn what you do while you’re in office, as long as you say you love Jesus and will stop abortion while you’re running, then all you have to do is wink and smile, and tell other voters what they want to hear, as well.


Okay, so what do we have here? We have a large bloc of people who don’t care about anything, except hearing what they’ve convinced themselves they want to hear, and they’re influencing elections because they’re too stupid and gullible to know that they’ve been taken for a ride. Do they really think that any politician can eliminate all abortions by signing his name to a law? Do they really think a politician who relies on an issue such as abortion for election would EVER take such an issue off the table?

These people are to gullible to be believed, and the best approach is to clear the record for everyone else and move on. They’re brainwashed, and we’re not going to fix that anytime soon, I promise you. As liberals, let’s concentrate on appealing to the majority of voters, and stop arguing with the ignorant tools. Let the Dennis Millers and the Ann Coulters exploit them for all they’re worth. We can do better than allowing ourselves to be consumed by arguments with these clowns. Let them go back to the fringes where they belong… please…

Compassionate Conservatism Writ Large!

Bushdunce
This is a short speech given by George W Bush yesterday. It was his first mention of the tragedy in Minneapolis the evening before. How inappropriate is this?

Good morning. I just finished a Cabinet meeting. One of the things we discussed was the terrible situation there in Minneapolis. We talked about the fact that the bridge collapsed, and that we in the federal government must respond and respond robustly to help the people there not only recover, but to make sure that lifeline of activity, that bridge, gets rebuilt as quickly as possible.

To that end, Secretary Peters is in Minneapolis, as well as Federal Highway Administrator Capka. I spoke to Governor Pawlenty and Mayor Rybak this morning. I told them that the Secretary would be there. I told them we would help with rescue efforts, but I also told them how much we are in prayer for those who suffered. And I thank my fellow citizens for holding up those who are suffering right now in prayer.

Okay, so far, so good. a little phony, smarmy and insincere, but hey; this is President Bush we’re talking about. But check out what comes next…

We also talked about — in the Cabinet meeting talked about the status of important pieces of legislation before the Congress. We spent a fair amount of time talking about the fact that how disappointed we are that Congress hasn’t sent any spending bills to my desk. By the end of this week, members are going to be leaving for their month-long August recess. And by the time they will return, there will be less than a month before the end of the fiscal year on September the 30th, and yet they haven’t passed one of the 12 spending bills that they’re required to pass. If Congress doesn’t pass the spending bills by the end of the fiscal year, Cabinet Secretaries report that their departments may be unable to move forward with urgent priorities for our country.

Is this the most insensitive crap you’ve ever seen in your life?

Well, of course it isn’t, because this is the president who also waited five days before even addressing the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Not only did he use a statement on a tragedy as an opening for a political attack on Democrats, but his attack also consisted of a load of garbage. congress almost NEVER sends spending bills to the president before the end of the fiscal year. the last Republican Congress didn’t even pass most of theirs before they left office in January. In fact, the only two they passed before they left office were the Defense and Homeland Security appropriations, and they passed those in late November of last year. (FYI, neither included any money for Iraq.)

So, not only does the Idiot-in-Chief use a tragedy as an opening for a partisan political attack, but the ‘attack’ demonstrates either a complete misunderstanding of the   appropriations process, or a willful batch of lies. Given his record, I’m thinking it’s probably the latter, since he’s never mentioned this before, when the GOP failed to have bills ready for him to sign "in time."

This doesn’t have to be this way. The Democrats won last year’s election fair and square, and now they control the calendar for bringing up bills in Congress. They need to pass each of these spending bills individually, on time, and in a fiscally responsible way.

The budget I’ve sent to Congress fully funds America’s priorities. It increases discretionary spending by 6.9 percent. My Cabinet Secretaries assure me that this is adequate to meet the needs of our nation.

Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in Congress want to spend far more. Their budget calls for nearly $22 billion more in discretionary spending next year alone. These leaders have tried to downplay that figure. Yesterday one called this increase — and I quote — "a very small difference" from what I proposed. Only in Washington can $22 billion be called a very small difference. And that difference will keep getting bigger. Over the next five years it will total nearly $205 billion in additional discretionary spending. That $205 billion averages out to about $112 million per day, $4.7 million per hour, $78,000 per minute.

Put another way, that’s about $1,300 in higher spending every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every year for the next five years. That’s a lot of money — even for career politicians in Washington. In fact, at that pace, Democrats in Congress would have spent an extra $300,000 since I began these remarks.

There’s only one way to pay for all this new federal spending without running up the deficit, and that is to raise your taxes. A massive tax hike is the last thing the American people need. The plan I put forward would keep your taxes low and balance the budget within five years, and that is the right path for our country.

I want to thank OMB Director Rob Portman for his hard work in developing this plan. This was Rob’s last Cabinet meeting. Laura and I wish him and his family well. And I call on the Senate to confirm his successor, Jim Nussle, so we can work together to keep our government running, to keep our economy growing, and to keep our nation strong. Thank you for your time.

So, let’s recap for a moment, shall we?

HE and the Republican Congress reduced taxes during war time.

HE and his people went before Congress and told them Iraq would be over in six weeks and cost a total of $8 billion, which would be paid for with Iraqi oil money.

HE and the Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors when they were in power, approving pork projects that would make the former king of pork, Robert Byrd blush.

HE and the Republican Congress  then appropriated more than $400 billion to Iraq, despite the fact that there was no plan for finishing up and getting out.

HE and the Republican Congress took us from a budget surplus situation to a record deficit situation.

HE and the Republicans oversaw the Corporate accouting scandals, prosecuted no one and recovered none of the money lost.

HE and the Republicans have been handing out tens of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to their buddies for years now.

HE and the Republicans have BLOCKED every attempt to get spending in Iraq under control since the Democrats took over.

But if taxes go up, it’s the Democrats’ fault. Not the Republicans’ for borrowing money from your kids to pay for their corruption and poor sense of fiscal responsibility. It’s their fault, for realizing the everything costs money, and that someone has to pay for them.

This would be unbelievable if this clown hadn’t been doing this for six  and a half years now…

 

House Republicans Throw Pissy Fit Because they Can’t get Their Bigoted way

Crying_child_2
Check this out! The Republicans want to pass a bigoted bill that would violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, so that they can appeal to their gullible wingnut base. There is no other reason to pass such a bill, because they know it’ll end up dead in court somewhere. So, when the Democrats play procedural games, they get all bent out of shape, pick up their ball and go home…

From: The Crypt’s Blog – Politico.com.

In a massive flare-up of partisan tensions, Republicans walked out on a House vote late Thursday night to protest what they believed to be Democratic maneuvers to reverse an unfavorable outcome for them.

The flap represents a complete breakdown in parliamentary procedure and an unprecedented low for the sometimes bitterly divided chamber.

The rancor erupted shortly before 11 p.m. as Rep. Michael R. McNulty (D-N.Y.) gaveled close the vote on a standard procedural measure with the outcome still in doubt.

Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward.

One GOP aide saw McNulty gavel the vote to a close after receiving a signal from his leaders – but before reading the official tally. And votes continued to shift even after he closed the roll call – a strange development in itself.

Whatever the final tally, acrimony quickly exploded between lawmakers on either side of the aisle as Democratic leaders tried to plot a solution, while parliamentarians on either side argued over protocol.

There you go. Republican politicians are desperate to play to their base, so they put forth a bigoted, blatantly unconstitutional bill like this, and then grab their blankies and go home when Democrats actually use their majority status to stop them.

Does anyone remember Democrats walking out when republicans held the vote open for three hours on the Medicare prescription drug bill, so that they could offer members more bribe money to get them to switch?

It’s a non-issue, folks. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the government from treating anyone present within our borders unequally, regardless of their alleged immigrant status.

So far, Congressional Republicans haven’t found an Iraq spending bill they didn’t like, they attempt to block everything Democrats do that most voters want them to do, and they continue to follow a course that demonstrates that they don’t give a rat’s ass about anything but pleasing the idiots who comprise their "base."

 

Obama’s Speech on Security

Barackobama
Barack Obama gave a major policy speech yesterday; one that has a lot of people buzzing once again that this guy is the real deal. Of course, it also has a lot of people on the left wondering if perhaps he’s too ‘hawkish.’ Here are segments of the speech with my comments…

———————–

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the
possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to
other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the
21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the
invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to
misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to
do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that
bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time
speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all
wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I
said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried
about a “ U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost,
with undetermined consequences” in the heart of the Muslim world. I
pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The
President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the
U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed.
Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad
and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress
became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the
wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would
create, and no plan for how to get out. 

Because of a war
in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have
been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.

This is exactly spot on.

Bush shone in the days right after 9/11 — well, after he put on some dry slacks and headed back to the White House from his hide out, anyway. he said all of the right things, and shook the right people’s hands. By September 14, 2001, people were actually starting to feel good again.

Unfortunately, that’s when his presidency effectively ended.

Everything the Bushies have done since then has been about money and power, and I’m sure the power is only to make sure the money keeps flowing to his buddies. Flying is moderately safer, at least inside the cabin, but honestly, even without all of this extra security when entering the terminal, the odds of a repeat of what happened on 9/11 is unlikely. No one will again be able to take the controls of a plane without a fight – ever. But the baggage hold isn’t a whole lot safer, our ports aren’t inspected any more than they were, the immigration situation is still at critical mass, and frankly, most of the actions Bush has undertaken in the intervening six years have made it more likely that terrorists will attack, not less.

The Iraq occupation (can we please stop calling this a war? This stopped being a war four years ago, when Saddam’s government was routed) must absolutely end, and end soon. Muslims don’t want us, or anyone else, there. The people living in the Middle East want to determine their own fate for the first time in more than a thousand years.  The longer we stay there, the longer they see us as just another in a long line of conquering  empires, and the more radical they’ll become. There are enough radical Muslims; there is no need to create more. And yet, that is exactly what we’re doing.

And Sen. Obama is so right when it comes to war. it is shameful that Congress rubber-stamped the Iraq War, regardless of the ‘evidence" presented. No one in their right mind could possibly have seen Iraq as a threat to anyone at the time, and we were already engaged with a group that had demonstrated a threat just a year earlier. no matter what one thought of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, it was simply not credible to believe that Iraq posed a greater threat than al Qaeda.

Sen. Obama continues:

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the
war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five
elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in
Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships
we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons;
engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism;
restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The
first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and
taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I
introduced a plan in January that would have already started bringing
our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by
March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then
ending this war will be my first priority when I take office. 

There
is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the
grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on
them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And
we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on
behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must
act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would
maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within
Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of
violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who
al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the
contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop
presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and
give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will
also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our
troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the
support they need—and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are
falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs,
and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to
Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support
NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our
European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome
restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more
of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping
of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S.
and NATO operations.

I know a lot of liberals will find this "hawkish," but the fact of the matter is, it’s the right thing to do. We have to fight the bad elements in these place, not just to keep ourselves safe, but to protect the people in the Middle East, as well. Think about it; they’ve terrorized us a few times in the past 20 years, but the poor people who live over there have been putting up with them for many more years, and many more times. I don’t know the answer to this, because I’m not on the inside, but I would suspect that our intelligence people are having a far more difficult time getting useful information these days, because people are more fearful of the United States. In other words, they don’t trust us or the terrorists.

There is no military solution in Iraq. On the other hand, there is no diplomatic solution to be had with al Qaeda. These are people without a country, in an almost literal way. They are being hidden in the wilds of Pakistan, with no government affiliation. And they are only safe because we aren’t going after them.

For whatever reason, Bush is using Musharraf’s and Pakistan’s sovereignty as his excuse for not going into Pakistan and routing al Qaeda once and for all. Funny; it didn’t stop him from invading Iraq, and taking over the entire country; now we’re claiming we can’t persuade him to allow us to go into a small corner of the country and take out specific people who have done us harm? Okay, fine; if he won’t allow us to do it, then why isn’t the Pakistani Army going in there and doing it for us? Aren’t they our "Allies"? If a steady stream of Germans were using Britain as a home base to attack the US, what would we do if Gordon Brown refused to help us out?

Now, I said the solution to the al Qaeda was only a military solution. Understand that the al Qaeda problem is different than the Afghanistan problem. We must do our best to help the Afghan people find their way to a stable government of their choosing. We can’t simply leave Afghanistan broken; we have to put as much of our resources into helping the, build a society they can live with. That requires a political solution, with a variety of players.

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest
military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21st
century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without
civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political
reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As President,
I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and
brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers
and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other
civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there
is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all
aspects of American might.

One component of this integrated
approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together
personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These
teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an
immediate impact in peoples’ lives, and to turn the tide against
extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope
has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real
difference in advancing security and opportunity – that is where these
teams will go.

Again, Sen. Obama hit the nail on the head. Having the finest military in the world is a great thing, but its primary mission should be defense. As in protecting the United States. The military should always be a last resort, used when all other measure fail, not as a first resort, in a vain attempt to "force" others to comply to our will. The United States of America needs more friends, not more enemies. More enemies means a greater need for resources, meaning more tax money, and greater vigilance. The Marshall Plan was probably the single greatest achievement by the United States government in our history. We simultaneously rebuilt Europe after World War II, lessened the dangers to Americans around the world, and created an economic boom that has lasted, to some extent, to this day. Yet, we have not repeated our accomplishment. That is, in a word, ludicrous.

One thing that George W. Bush said during his 2000 campaign that made sense was that the United States has to stop telling other countries how to live, and we have to stop being the world’s policeman. It was one of the few things he said that made sense, and yet, he has proceeded to do the exact opposite when he obtained the reins of power.  Our reputation has taken a major hit in countries all around the world, and the next president will have no choice but to repair that damage, and the best way to do so is to return us to the role of benevolent superpower. It’s really strange, isn’t it? We won the Cold War largely on our reputation for being strong but fair, and yet the right wingers who have largely guided this country off the cliff by abandoning principle over blind strength.

Sen. Obama simply rocks. He gets it. This country needs a leader who understands that we have to be strong, but that we also have to be benevolent and fair. We have to go after those who would hurt us, when there is no other choice, but we also have to take pains to make it less likely that others hurt us. Meddling in the Middle East, occupying one country and ham-handedly threatening other countries has created more terrorists than anything in recent years. We can’t let bullies get away with attacking us, but we also can’t be just like the bullies.

This is one of the best campaign speeches I’ve ever read (I wish I’d seen it, and if the Obama campaign wouldn’t mind, I would love to put the video of it up on my web site.) Democrats have to stop triangulating on defense, and we have to make people understand that George Bush isn’t tough on terrorism; quite the opposite; he’s probably the greatest enabler of terrorism in history.

BarackObama.com | Sam Graham-Felsen’s Blog: Senator Obama Delivers Address on National Security.

And Then the Bushies Lie About the Economy

This is just a crock in so many ways. But the rhetoric contained therein actually bolsters my argument, that our economy is built on a foundation of pudding; our ‘prosperity" is all smoke and mirrors.

From: Reuters: Paulson says subprime woes contained

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Wednesday that the market impact of the U.S. subprime mortgage fallout is largely contained and that the global economy is as strong as it has been in decades.

First of all, no one’s arguing that the GLOBAL economy isn’t strong, to a certain extent. There are a lot of very strong economies out there, and two of them are poised to overtake us as the largest economy in the world within a decade or less. In fact, I’ll vote for less. China and the European Union are growing very well, thank you very much.

It’s the US economy that should worry us, mostly because we have to live under it.

And one of the reasons is that our economy since 1981 has been built largely on illusions; a series of scams and schemes, the latest of which is the ‘subprime" mortgage scam. And it’s not only not "contained," its effects are likely to be felt for a very long time to come.

In a nutshell, selling homes to people who couldn’t afford to actually buy them, created a bubble; an artificial spike in home prices that created a lot of short-term profits for the people who perpetrated this scheme, but left a lot of people with overpriced homes. In other words, a lot of people are left with a lot of negative equity in their home, IF they can afford to keep it. Foreclosures are beginning to rise, and probably won’t peak for a few years, and that will cause a glut of available housing.

Not only that, but mortgage companies only have so much money available to lend, and when they have a boatload of mortgages on homes that are worth far less than the value of the mortgage, it makes it very difficult to lend more money to qualified people.

Paulson may be trying to put lipstick on this pig, but it’s still a pig.

European and Asian stocks tumbled on Wednesday following a sharp drop in U.S. shares on Tuesday, after American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (AHM.N) said it may have to liquidate assets, fuelling worries over problems in the subprime mortgage market spilling over into other sectors.

This is the problem, folks, in a nutshell.

When the American economy sneezes, the rest of the world gets a cold. That is still true, but a lot of developing economies are getting sick of the frequency of the colds. The only American product in great supply these days is the dollar, and several of them are considering a switch to Euros. If that happens, then we will no longer be the 900-lb. gorilla in the world economy.

The recent volatility in global stock and currency markets reflected a repricing of risk and the unwinding of excesses in U.S. mortgage and leveraged buyout financing, Paulson said.

"There’s a wake-up call, and there’s an adjustment to this repricing of risk, but I see the underlying economy as being very healthy," he told reporters before leaving Beijing, where he pressed top officials to let the yuan strengthen more quickly.

On the yuan , Paulson said he had told the officials that allowing it to appreciate more quickly would help both the Chinese and world economies.

We’re in economic trouble, folks, and the Bushies keep lying to make it better. It’s not getting better.

A Breath of Truth — But Only One — How Long Before Adm. Mullen is Fired?

I guess it’s just startling when a representative of the Bushies tells the truth somewhat…

From: Joint Chiefs Nominee Notes Toll on Military, Need to Plan for Iraq Drawdown – washingtonpost.com.

Adm. Michael G. Mullen, President Bush’s nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate panel yesterday that the war in Iraq is taking a heavy toll on the U.S. military, warning that American forces are "not unbreakable" and stressing the need to "plan for an eventual drawdown" of troops.

Appearing in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mullen, 60, acknowledged that the increase in U.S. forces cannot continue past April 2008 under the military’s current force structure. He also cautioned that Iraqi political reconciliation is not keeping pace with security improvements. 

Unless the Iraqi government takes advantage of the "breathing space" that U.S. forces are providing, Mullen said, "no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference."

See, this is the point. For some reason, the Bushies seem to envision that when the United States goes into a country with guns blazing, everyone else cowers in fear and does our bidding.

I’d like to welcome Bush into the reality-based community, but I’m not sure he’s ready to join quite yet.

Without a political initiative, military operations are pointless. Even during World War II, getting rid of the Nazis was only step 1. There had to be a plan for what to do after the Nazis were defeated.

That’s why the Iraq occupation has always been such a boondoggle. We got rid of the Saddam regime, but we followed it up with four-plus years of "Now what?" There are three very distinct factions inside Iraq, and until the needs of all three are reconciled, there can be no peace and security. There could be a million US/UN troops inside the country, and there would still be loads of violence, because there is no military component to the problems over there. Until you get all three sides talking, and figuring out how to live together, and to live with their neighbors, there will be no peace.

Got that, Bushies?

You created a perpetual civil war from relative peace. And guns will not solve the problem.

Weiner Savage: Did Democrats Cause Roberts’ Seizure?

Savage
You know, the wingnuts love to refer to liberals as "paranoid" and dismiss pretty much everything we say as being part of a ‘conspiracy theory.’ But for Chrissakes, folks, it just doesn’t get any loonier than this.

Remember, this asshole has a national radio show, and a legion of wingnut fans. On the one hand, it does keep the loons occupied, and keeps them out of trouble, because they surely can’t listen and do something else at the same time. But  isn’t there something else that could occupy three hours of valuable public airtime?

From: Media Matters – Savage Nation July 30, 2007

SAVAGE: All right, we have a breaking news update. Chief Justice John Roberts has had a seizure in his summer home in Maine, and he fell on a dock. Now, what’s interesting to me, and almost frightening and puzzling, is that on Friday Charles Schumer gave a loud and vociferously nasty speech during which he said he would never support another Bush judge. He would never support a — it was — you know, let me ask you something. All you leftists believe in the conspiracy of Bush and Cheney, the conspiracy of 9-11. Am I to believe that there’s no connection between Charles Schumer on Friday saying that he would never appoint, or never, excuse me, approve another Bush appointment to the court, to any court? And then the chief justice suffers a so-called seizure two days later? You’re telling me there’s no possibility of a conspiracy by the Democrats to have caused this seizure in some manner? Tell me that it’s not possible. Tell me that the stakes are not so high that the liberals — who’ve finally lost the court after 50 years — that they would stop short of anything like this. Tell me it’s not possible, and I’ll tell you you’re a liar.

[…]

SAVAGE: I find it odd that Bigfoot Schumer — and I call him Bigfoot for a reason — that Bigfoot on Friday would say he’s putting his foot down and they’re never going to approve another Bush appointment because the court’s been moved too far to the right. What he means is it’s no longer a communist socialist court. It’s been moved to the center, make no mistake about it. It’s a centrist court; it’s by no means a right-wing court. A right-wing court would be much different than this one. It’s a centrist court. Even that’s too much for Schumer, [Sen. Barbara] Boxer [D-CA], [Sen. Dianne] Feinstein [D-CA], [Sen. Richard] Durbin [D-IL], [Sen. Edward] Kennedy [D-CA], et al. They want a left-wing court of lackeys to bring us into the world of socialism, to destroy our Constitution once and for all under the guise of liberalism, to destroy once and for all the dignity of the United States of America by bringing the cesspool to Main Street.

And so, this is pretty amazing to me that he’s had a seizure at age 52. That’s a pretty amazing thing. They say that he had a similar episode in 1993 and that now they’re telling us there’s no cause for concern and you don’t know what to believe. But he will remain in the hospital and will remain overnight. Now why he had a seizure I don’t know. I don’t think he was asked to dine in Manhattan on his way to Maine. I don’t think he was asked to share a sandwich on his way to Maine, do you? They say, "Well it can’t happen here. It’s impossible."

Well, let me ask you something. You remember the Russian who ate some polonium sushi? He was going to give an interview that was embarrassing to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin? He ate a polonium sushi and then he died. Well, they do it over there when there’s a lot of money at stake, don’t they? Power at stake? What’s a human being to power-mad people and power-mad parties? Nothing.

So why can’t we assume for a moment that it’s within the realm of possibility that Roberts was in some way — his health was in some way tampered with by the Democrats because they can’t believe that no matter what they do, no matter what they do — even if they engineer a victory for Hillary Clinton/[Barack] Obama — they’re still not going to be in control because the court’s moved to the center? Just a thought. Just a tiny little thought for you to ponder tonight, all you left-wingers who are so glib in your attacks on the conservative movement.

[…]

SAVAGE: Let me say this again: On Thursday, some hack for the left wing, some hack professor said that we should increase the number of people on the Supreme Court, raising it from nine to another number. And he gave precedent for it. Of course, you have to go back 200 years to come up with this precedent. He then — then on Friday, the shocking statement by Schumer, the obstructionist, whose nightmare — whose dream for America is a nightmare for me. His dream is to see a Hillary presidency and he becomes appointed to the Supreme Court. That’s what Schumer has lived for from the time he was a little boy. That’s all he wants, so he had the nerve to say on Friday he will never, ever, ever permit another Bush appointee to get onto a court, to become a judge. Then today we read that the chief justice has had a seizure and fell on a dock? Something’s wrong with this picture.

You know, anyone who can make Whore Limbaugh look sane is definitely nuts; no doubt about that. It certainly makes you wonder what he and Allen Ginsberg were doing besides swimming naked, back when he was simply Michael Weiner, left-wing radical nutjob.

 

Bancrofts Allow Murdoch to Kill WSJ

This is a tragedy for anyone who values the news media.

Even though their op-ed pages were horrible, The Wall Street Journal could always be counted on to report the news fairly and completely.

Now, Rupert Murdoch will undoubtedly do to the word "Journal" what he did to the word News, when he created the Republican propaganda arm known euphemistically as "Fox News."

From: Reuters.co.uk.

Dow Jones & Co. Inc.’s controlling Bancroft family "has accepted" News Corp.’s  $5 billion offer to buy the publisher of the Wall
Street Journal, an executive of a Dow Jones unit said on
Tuesday.

"The Bancroft family has accepted," John Prestbo, editor
and executive director of Dow Jones Indexes, told reporters on
Tuesday in Chicago. Dow Jones "will be part of News Corp," he
said.

    Prestbo told Reuters the information came from an internal
company memo.

No wonder blogs are so popular…

Seriously, is everything in this country about money? Why would you sell a family business with a great reputation to a guy who turns every news organization he touches to shit?