The American Condition

And now a Special Comment on MSNBC ending the show "Countdown"

2011-01-22T12:08:00.008-06:00

The new, extremely conservative owner of MSNBC, Comcast, has done a great disservice by ending Keith Olbermann's contract - not to Olbermann, but to the ability of the nation to hear another side of the story uniquely presented within the tenets of journalism. Countdown is by its own admission full of commentary and subjectivity to be sure, but it also uses sources, attribution, and the historical record to back up and document its arguments logically, factually, and sincerely.

Countdown was the highest-rated show on MSNBC and wasn't even matched in the ratings by any show at any time on rival CNN, either. Comcast obviously wanted to quiet the most-popular voice that opposed their right-wing political philosophy.

One doesn't have to agree with the progressive side of the story to recognize its place in journalism, which is much in opposition (and NOT a mirror image) to another network that operates outside professional parameters by promoting faux-journalistic fiction, gossip, and abominable inaccuracies in order to persuade the gullible and weak-minded.

MSNBC's level of trustworthiness and respectability has taken a huge hit as will, I'm sure, the ratings and financial rewards of the network. It is their loss, the viewers' loss, and the loss of another piece of honest discourse in our society.

Only One Side Has Been Perpetrating and Promoting Violence

2011-01-09T14:41:00.012-06:00

For anyone who's thinking, "Well, I'm sure violence comes from both sides of the political spectrum," here's a brief reminder.

No, it hasn't. It has virtually all been coming from conservatives and to an abominable degree.

From Sarah Palin's gunsights on Representatives including the just-shot Gabby Giffords in Arizona with her calls to "take aim" and "open a salvo", to Sharron Angle's calling for 2nd Amendment remedies to "take out" Harry Reid, to completely taking out of context a quote from Thomas Jefferson as if he were promoting violence (he wasn't) in pursuit of liberty, the radical right as promoted through their media outlets have done everything short of arming their disciples and given them location addresses for their public appearances.

No, strike that. They DID give out the locations for Democrats' public appearances while not revealing Republicans' meetings during the Health Care debate, if you can use that word when the one purpose promoted was to disrupt any discussion or actual debate.

In case you don't remember:

A conservative who followed right-wing media killed a guard at the Holocaust museum.

A conservative who followed right-wing media killed West Memphis cops.

A conservative who followed right-wing media killed Dr. George Tiller while he was in church.

A conservative who followed right-wing media killed two people at a Unitarian church in Tennessee.

Unknown arsonists set fire to a planned Tennessee Mosque and cultural center at the time right-wing media denounced a planned Manhattan mosque and cultural center.

Unknown terrorists targeted Democratic officials and non-conservative media figures with anthrax in the past decade.

Democratic Congressman James Clyburn was spit on while being called racial slurs by conservatives in May 2010.

Numerous Democratic Party headquarters around the country were vandalized with bricks by conservatives who attached pro-conservative rhetoric to the weapons after being directed to do so by their conservative lords.

The headquarters for several Democratic Representatives such as Louise Slaughter and Gabby Giffords were attacked similarly by conservatives.

Nine conservative members of the Hutaree militia planned attacks last year on government officials and those who would attend the subsequent funerals.

A conservative who followed conservative anti-tax rhetoric flew a plane into a Texas IRS building.

A Tennessee conservative was arrested after walking into his local county courthouse to try to effect a citizen's arrest of a grand jury foreman who had refused to investigate President Obama's legitimacy to serve as promoted by right-wing media.

A self-proclaimed Glenn Beck fan was arrested for scouting out and trespassing on Air National Guard Base at Gabreski Airport in New York. She had an XM-15 assault rifle, a shotgun, and 500 rounds of ammunition in her car when police found her.

A conservative supporter knocked down to the ground and then stomped on a liberal protester's head as she lay by the curb outside a Republican campaign stop.

There are so many more I can cite, but the pattern is obvious here. Violent acts are not protected First Amendment speech and cannot be tolerated by a civilized society. The promoters in the conservative media are just as guilty as the perpetrators and should stop promoting violence immediately.

Republicans, The First Week

2011-01-08T10:30:00.020-06:00

After just two days, the Republican majority in the House of Representatives has shown themselves to be a hypocritical embarrassment to anyone who voted for them as well as the rest of America.

They promised to employ a stringent interpretation of the Constitution without acknowledging that it is not written in stone to set up permanent rules, but rather to set guidelines that need to be interpreted or even changed with the evolution (oh dear, that word!) of our society. Our forefathers have made plenty of egregious errors along the way. How do the Republicans address that? By changing historical truths to suit their needs. In the reading of the Constitution, they simply ignored such facts as Native Americans weren’t considered people, that Blacks were considered just three-fifths of a person, that escaped slaves were to be returned to their owners no matter where in the country they were found, and that conservatives made alcohol consumption and commerce constitutionally illegal.

Well, isn’t that special!

Two Republican Congressmen – Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick – didn’t even bother to honor the rules of the Constitution when they didn't show up to be sworn in with the rest of the House. Where were they instead? They were attending a fundraiser that would help line their pockets with all of those really wealthy dollars that helped buy their way into office so they may attend to their further bidding.

Breaking the rules of Constitution on the day Congress is reading parts of the Constitution so you can be paid by really wealthy people is certainly very special!

Republicans pledged to cut 100 Billion dollars in federal spending. Now they say that written pledge was just hypothetical so they’re revised that to 50 Billion and some experts are saying it will be much more like 30 Billion. Meanwhile, they raised the deficit by 133 Billion with bonus tax cuts for wealthy beyond the regular tax cuts they would have gotten as proposed by the Democrats. Republicans say they were already in place, but, in fact, they were put in place at a time of economic surplus without wars and were set by Republicans to expire.

Republicans are trying to explode the deficit by another 230 Billion dollars by repealing health care reform. It’s part of their new “cut-as-you-go” promise – to not just pay for, but cut spending by whatever has to be paid for additionally. What will be cut to pay for this 230 Billion dollar blow up of the deficit? Nothing because they decided arbitrarily they don’t need to follow this promise when they don’t want to! And 230 Billion dollars is the amount computed by the independent Congressional Budget Office – the official accountants working on behalf of the government. The Republican Speaker says that’s just their opinion, which is tantamount to saying he thinks 2+2=7, and those who tell him it’s 4 are simply of the wrong opinion as well.

Well, isn’t that special!

Another broken Republican pledge is their stated commitment to reporting public attendance of Congressional committee meetings, which is where nearly all of their work takes place. But they decided to do away with that provision in a closed-door meeting Tuesday night.

Apparently, their promise of transparency wasn’t that special, either.

Another one of Republicans’ pledges was their promise to allow Democrats to offer amendments to legislation. On their first bill introduced since taking over, Republicans are not going to allow any amendments. Take it or leave it, suckers!

Another often-repeated promise was a “triumphant” return to open rules in the House. But after one day we see reporting that not a single one of the bills that will be brought to the floor this week will be brought under open rules.

Isn’t that triumphantly special!

Finally, in their Pledge to America, Republicans also promised to require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified. After all, these Republicans are strict constitutionalists (not counting the parts of the Constitution they don't believe in or want to acknowledge were ever there). However, none of the three bills that Republicans plan to introduce this week have any constitutional citation.

None of this hypocritical, dishonest, or simply bungling behavior is the result of an opposition party trying to destroy any accomplishment of government or childishly just saying “No” to obstruct everything proposed. Republicans have done this totally on their own to themselves and the American people, and they’ve done it in just two days.

The Economy in a Nutshell

2009-03-21T21:37:00.009-06:00

You, too, can understand the economy once it's broken down to it's easily component parts. Really!

(Bullet points always help.)

We wouldn't be upset about AIG execs getting bonuses from taxpayers if there hadn't been a bailout.
AIG wouldn't have needed bailing out if it hadn't been too big to fail.
AIG wouldn't have been too big to fail if it hadn't become a giant corporate mixture of insurance, banking, and investment house.
AIG wouldn't have been able to become a giant corporate mixture of insurance, banking, and investment house if there hadn't been deregulation of Wall Street that allowed firms to get like that.
There wouldn't have been deregulation of Wall Street that allowed firms to get like that if there hadn't been the Republican political philosophy that preached that regulation was bad and that deregulation was good.
There wouldn't have been the total deregulation of Wall Street if it weren't for the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, introduced by those three Republicans.
The Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 tore down the separation of commercial banks from investment banks from insurance companies that had been in place since the Great Depression.
That's how Citibank gobbled up Travelers Group Insurance to become Citigroup and AIG added the various banking measures to its insurance business by insuring banking and mortgages it knew were bad. BUT WHO WAS GOING TO STOP THEM? Nobody, thanks to the Republicans.
Banking and mortgage companies gave outrageous mortgages to unqualified buyers because they got insurance for them (that was totally worthless). BUT WHO WAS GOING TO STOP THEM? Nobody, thanks to the Republicans.
Then there came the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (with the famed "Enron Loophole") which exempted high-risk actions from any regulation whatsoever. Not only was it legal from the 1999 act, but now it couldn't even be overseen. It was another action by Phil Graham and the Republicans.

The Great Depression of the 1930s was repaired by the Democrats with the formation of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) to provide oversight and control, and the New Deal (a federal investment in job-creating and economic-stimulating infrastructure) to correct unregulated, Republican failures.

Can we now finally learn from our mistakes?

Economy Solution - The New York Yankee$

2008-12-26T10:08:00.008-06:00

I believe the true answer to the financial crisis is to allow the New York Yankee$ to buy the top five banks in America as well as the big three auto makers.

Apparently, there is no economic recession if your last name is Steinbrenner, as in New York Yankee$ owner Hank Steinbrenner.

In the past 12 months or so, the New York Yankee$ have signed five players... FIVE... to contracts totaling more than three-quarters of a BILLION dollars!

They have a brand new stadium, being funded in part by taxpayer bonds.

And what's more scurrilous about this is the way the Yankee$ have most recently gone about it. For recently signed first baseman Mark Texeira they waited until all of the other teams bidding for his services played out, then trounced the top bid by an insurmountable sum at the last second.

Certainly, they will win at least 105 baseball games this year as well as the World Series. If not, they should fire every manager, coach, and executive with the team.

Do all of the citizens of New York really want their tax dollars going to buying every top level baseball player available? If so, I'm sure they'll pay $2500 a seat at the games and $11 a beer in droves, and I'm sure won't mind a few dollars going to bail out the Republican recession as well.

The Yankee$ are truly the evil empire, but they can turn that around by becoming our benevolent benefactors.

I hope the people of New York are happy cheering for their championship team while they're looking for a job, declaring personal bankruptcy, losing their health insurance (such as it is these days), and seeing a radical increase in violent crime. People of New York, you will get what you pay for.

So how about sharing some of your tax dollars with the rest of us? It's only fair if we're going to be the whipping boys for your store-bought All-Star baseball team.

Awful McCain Mistakes on Foreign Policy

2008-09-21T20:23:00.006-05:00

In a week in which the Dow lost 1,000 points on Monday and Wednesday, John McCain was insisting the economic fundamentals in America were strong. Wha???????

OK, the economy is, by his own admission, not his strong suit. So does he have a strong suit?

The media has attempted to portray McCain to have knowledge on foreign policy, but his repeated mistakes prove he is not intelligent enough to handle that, either. As a recap, here are some of McCain's recent foreign policy gaffes in which he said that:

1 - Iraq and Pakistan share a border.

2 - Czechoslovakia still exists.

3 - He was confused as to the difference between Sudan and Somalia.

4 - He was confused as to whether it was more U.S troops or more NATO troops he wanted to send to Afghanistan.

5 - He was confused as to what troop levels are in Iraq.

6 - He was confused about Iran's relationship with Al Qaeda.

7 - He was confused about the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

8 - He referred to Russian President Putin as being the leader of Germany.

9 - He jokingly sang about bombing Iran.

10 - His running mate spoke of bombing Russia.

11 - And now this week, he has referred to our friendly European ally and fellow democracy, Spain, as being our adversary, and...

12 - being located in Central America.

McCain is showing himself to be weak-minded, weak-willed, lacking judgment, lacking intelligence, lacking stamina, and choosing the worst, most unqualified running mate in U.S. history (supplanting even Dan Quayle).

Apparently, he does not have any strong suit at all.

Despite the media's attempts to keep the race close for their own ratings benefit, John McCain is showing such a lack of ability to be president as to even overcome that propaganda to register in the polls whose methodology already favors the republican candidates by skewed selection of those they poll.

Red Sox Add by Addition

2008-08-03T10:50:00.006-05:00

Some are arguing the Red Sox accomplished addition by subtraction this week by trading Manny Ramirez and acquiring Jason Bay, meaning they took a step back by making the switch, but accomplished more in the long run by removing a problem player.

They’re wrong. The Red Sox have added a more accomplished player in Bay.

Those who don’t like the deal are only looking at the raw numbers:

Ramirez - .303 BA, 21 HR .936 OPS through 8-3-08.

Bay - .283 BA, 23 HR, .906 OPS.

Those are the UNADJUSTED stats. Adjust for all of the factors and you’ll see Bay is the superior hitter and player.

Factor #1 - Ball Park

Ramirez played home games in Fenway park, a hitter’s park. His stats were inflated because of where he played half of his games.

Bay played his home games in Pittsburgh, a pitcher’s park that made hitting stats worse.

Factor #2 - Pitching staffs

Ramirez didn’t have to face above-average Red Sox pitchers so his numbers were compiled against slightly below league-average pitching. That made his batting statistics better than if they were against average pitching in the league.

Bay didn’t get to face below-average Pirates pitchers so his numbers were compiled against slightly above league-average pitching. That made his batting statistics worse than if he got to face average pitching in the league.

Factor # 3 - Defense

Ramirez was often replaced late in games to allow a better defensive outfielder to play in LF. When David Ortiz was out with an injury, Ramirez moved to DH, a spot he’s more suited for.

Bay is better in the field and can stay in ball games to provide good fielding with his range and his arm.

Factor # 4 - Speed

Ramirez was slow on the base paths, and that’s when he actually tried to run. Ramirez could have gotten extra hits by running harder on misplayed ground balls he assumed would be outs. With him, they were because of his lack of effort.

Bay has always hustled in his career. He plays the game with full effort and won’t accept an out as automatic. This season he is 7 for 7 in stolen base attempts.

Factor # 5 - Age

Ramirez is 36.

Bay is 29.

Factor # 6 - Contract

Ramirez makes $20 million a year and is a free agent after this season.

Bay is signed through 2009 when he will make $7.5 million.

Factor # 7 - In the Clubhouse

No one will ever say that Jason is just being Jason - in a bad way, that is.

An Awful Week in McCain's Political Life, but the Media Covers it up

2008-07-13T20:23:00.014-05:00

If John McCain weren’t the darling of the media, he would be in BIG trouble after this past week. I cannot remember a politician having such a disastrous string of mistakes, missteps, and misstatements in so short a time. Yet, it's almost being completely ignored by the media.

First, McCain promised to balance the budget by the end of his first term from all the money he would save by winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even though he has said in the past that there’s no reason to bring troops home if they’re not getting killed anymore. Of course, he has also said that we can’t bring the troops home as long as they’re getting killed. In other words, we stay if we are getting killed and we stay if we’re not getting killed. So where does the money being saved come from?

He then attacked Barack Obama for not voting for something he didn’t vote for, either - the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

He claimed to have a record with veterans that he really doesn’t have. It was Barack Obama who supported the G.I. Bill and John McCain who refused to vote for it. That just backs up all Veterans’ groups overwhelmingly scoring McCain’s support of soldiers among the worst in the Senate.

McCain ignored the Iraqi Prime Minister calling for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq even though McCain had said before that if the Iraqis wanted us to leave, we would leave.

McCain joked about wanting to kill Iranian civilians by giving them lung cancer.

On Monday, McCain described social security as a total disgrace, not saying that it needed to be fixed, but saying, “We are paying present-day retirees with the taxes being paid by young workers in America today.” That just happens to be the entire premise of social security, which he has stated he wants to privatize.

McCain’s top economic advisor, Phil Gramm, who largely caused the mortgage crisis in America by creating the Enron loophole while a Senator, called Americans a bunch of whiners for an economy he said was only in a mental recession. Despite this, he got to keep his campaign co-chairman position.

Another top economic advisor, the formerly ousted Hewlett Packard CEO, Carly Fiorino, told reporters that McCain was just as upset as she was that insurance companies cover Viagra for men, but not birth control for women leaving McCain befuddled and bewildered on his campaign bus when reporters asked him about it.

Finally, McCain lied about his own life story just to pander to a Pittsburgh TV morning show. When McCain was held in Vietnam by the North Vietnamese, he had always said he gave false information under torture to make the torturers stop. He even stated it in his autobiography and the film that was made about it. Instead of naming his squad mates and squadron commander, he named the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers - the best team in football in the 1960s.

At the time, the Pittsburgh Steelers stunk. They were completely insignificant with no outstanding players although they would later become the best team of the 1970s well after McCain left Vietnam.

In talking to this Pittsburgh TV reporter, McCain changed his life story by saying he named the Pittsburgh Steelers famous defensive line of the time just to show what a great Pittsburgh fan he was. Too bad the famous Steel Curtain defense didn’t exist yet!

Furthermore, he formerly used this Green Bay Packers story to illustrate how ineffective torture is. A victim generally says anything just to end the pain. Of course, McCain completely changed his anti-torture stance under the direction of the Republican dictatorship who used incorrect information gleaned under torture to justify the irresponsible spending of American blood and taxpayers’ dollars in Iraq.

It’s a good thing for McCain that the media is the lapdog of the Republican machine or else he’d never hear the end of this week’s gaffes.

McCain, Republicans - No (truthful) Energy Plan Whatsoever

2008-06-24T19:02:00.007-05:00

The latest atrocity being pushed by John McCain and the Republicans is that we need to boost oil production by drilling off the gulf shore shore and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Arctic Refuge (ANWAR).

Virtually every reason they give for this is, at best - completely baseless; and, at worst - a total lie.

The fact is that the Republicans’ stance on energy and oil has been abysmal and that McCain has no plan whatsoever to offer other than to keep doing what Bush is doing - subsidizing oil companies like Exxon-Mobil who made $8 billion per year when Bush took office, but who now make over $40 billion per year giving them the largest yearly corporate profit in the history of planet Earth.

We also have no reason to need it. The oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land in the United States and purposely NOT drilling on it. They are hoarding at our expense and their republican backed puppets are floating other abominations now.

Misrepresentation #1 - Increasing offshore drilling will help bring down the cost of oil quickly.

Fact - Increasing offshore may produce a little more oil by the year 2025 or so, but the amount will be only a slight fraction of the nation’s total output. Republicans are basing this on the theory that we can drill our way out of the problem.

This is truly the most ludicrous of all their arguments. The United States has two percent of the world’s oil, but use 25 percent. Increasing that to 2.02 percent in 20 years will not make up the difference. If it was a difference maker, why won't they drill on the already secured 68 million acres they're sitting on? Because we're already refining oil at our full capacity. More oil won't get us more gasoline or lower prices.

Misrepresentation #2 - Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 did no damage to the environment from offshore oil platforms. McCain said, “They’re safe enough.”

Fact - Hurricanes Katrina and Rita forced 700,000 gallons of oil to spill during the hurricanes. The chance of further disasters not related to weather also factor into a possible catastrophic disaster to not only the ecology, but also the gulf states’ industries along the coast, such as the seafood industry and tourism on the beaches.

Misrepresentation #3 (actually a blatant lie) - “China is drilling off the coast of Florida...” (optional aside - “with the help of Cuba.”)

Fact - It’s a LIE. This rumor has been alleged by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Republican Congressmen John Boehner and Roy Blount, and media personalties Michelle Bachman and George Will over the past week. Dick Cheney actually apologized and corrected himself the day after this assertion, but it has a life that lives on thanks to Bachman and friends at the Republican Headquarters known as “Fox News.” It simply happens to be a fabrication.

Misrepresentation #4 (and the most fanciful of all) - ANWAR helps caribou in Alaska because the pipeline is warm. One Republican congresswoman from Minnesota even said the caribou will have coffee klatches with such a warm pipeline! I’m not making that up.

Fact - This is the silliest one yet. Think about it a second - the animals native to Alaska... are freezing??? Wouldn’t they have moved or become extinct long ago if they needed more warmth? And oh, by the way, why would we be HEATING the oil to such a degree that it will make the outside of the pipes warm? Is there some reason we’d need to do that? Would we need portable heaters along the pipeline to keep it warm the entire length? If not, then why has no one ever proposed simply putting in heaters FOR THE CARIBOU?

The simple truth is that the wealthiest corporations in the history of civilization, who are already being subsidized with additional tax dollars paid by hard-working Americans, want more. The Republicans are just the people who will rob the bottom 99 percent to make it happen.

Bobby Jindal - Puppet, Heretic, Exorcist

2008-06-15T16:15:00.005-05:00

Bobby Jindal is the Indian-American, 36-year-old governor of Louisiana and the only non-white Republican to hold high political office in the United States.

Some have thrown out his name as a possible vice-presidential running mate for John McCain. It won’t happen because, if for no other reason, the age difference would make John McCain look really old.

Jindal has been appointed to most of his positions by upper-echelon Republicans who taught him to obey, and he has throughout his career in Congress and, now, Governor. He has voted with George W. Bush more than 95 percent of the time and kissed up to every conservative politician who came into the state.

He was a Hindu until converting to Catholicism at 15. But it was revealed this week that he admitted to committing one of the most egregious sins in the Catholic church when he took the role of a priest in performing an exorcism.

That’s right - he performed an exorcism - on a girlfriend he once knew. He wrote about it in a magazine article.

In the Catholic church, only an ordained priest can perform an exorcism, and, even then, it takes quite a high authority to appoint a priest to that function.

Obviously, Jindal thought rather highly of himself to appoint himself to this task.

He said it worked. He claimed the demon was cast out of the girl’s body.

Furthermore, Jindal said he also cured her of cancer!

It’s too bad he can’t use some of those magical powers to keep some his campaign promises about transparency in the Louisiana governor’s office regarding ethics.

Maybe the devil made him do it.

Obama's Record on New Orleans

2008-06-07T00:17:00.005-05:00

I wrote yesterday about more misstatements by John McCain about Iraq and New Orleans.

Obama's record in speaking out against Republican lies on Iraq is well-documented, but less well-known are his actions regarding New Orleans. Here's a rundown of what Obama has done for this area. Here's what the blog, "Think On These Things," compiled through February 2008.

Sept. 2, 2005: Obama holds press conference urging Illinoisans to contribute to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

Sept. 5, 2005: Obama goes to Houston to visit evacuees with Presidents Clinton and Bush.

Sept. 7, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a national emergency family locator system

Sept. 8, 2005: Obama introduces bill to create a National Emergency Volunteers Corps.

Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Katrina Emergency Relief Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Harry Reid

Sept. 8, 2005: Obama co-sponsors the Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community Protection Act of 2005 introduced by Senator Russ Feingold

Sept. 12, 2005: Obama introduces legislation requiring states to create an emergency evacuation plan for society’s most vulnerable

Sept. 15, 2005: Obama issues public response to President Bush’s speech about Gulf Coast rebuilding.

Sept. 21, 2005: Obama co-sponsors bill to establish a Katrina commission to investigate response to the disaster introduced by Hillary Clinton

Sept. 21, 2005: Obama appears on NPR to discuss the role of poverty in Hurricane Katrina.

Sept. 22, 2005: Obama and Coburn’s Hurricane Katrina financial oversight bill unanimously passes Senate committee.

Sept. 22, 2005: Obama’s amendment requiring evacuation plans unanimously passes Senate committee.

Sept. 28, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement about the need for a Chief Financial Officer to oversee the financial mismanagement and suspicious contracts occurring in the reconstruction process

Sept. 29, 2005: Obama and Coburn investigate possible FEMA refusal of free cruise ship offer

Oct. 6, 2005: Obama and Coburn issue statement on FEMA Decision to re-bid Katrina contracts

Oct. 6, 2005: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005.

Oct. 21, 2005: Obama releases statement decrying the extension of FEMA director, Michael “Brownie” Brown’s contract. Obama calls Brown’s contract extension, “unconscionable.”

Nov. 17, 2005: Obama and Coburn introduce legislation asking FEMA to immediately re-bid all Katrina reconstruction contracts.

Feb. 1, 2006: Obama gives Senate floor speech on his legislation to help children affected by Hurricane Katrina

Feb. 2, 2006: Obama introduces legislation to help low-income children affected by Hurricane Katrina

Feb. 23, 2006: Obama issues statement responding to a White House report on Hurricane Katrina. Obama noted that the top two recommendations that the report had for the federal government were initiatives he had been working on since immediately after the storm hit. Obama called the administration’s response “delinquent.”

May 2, 2006: Obama gives speech about no-bid contracts in Hurricane Katrina reconstruction

May 4, 2006: Obama’s legislation to end no-bid contracts for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction passed the Senate.

June 15, 2006: Obama and Coburn announce legislation to require amendment to create competitive bidding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction for federal contracts over $500,000. Although it passed previously, the language was stripped in conference.

June 15, 2006: Obama releases podcast about his pending Katrina reconstruction legislation in the Senate.

June 16, 2006: Obama and Coburn get no-bid Hurricane Katrina reconstruction amendment into Department of Defense authorization bill.

July 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn’s legislation to end abuse of no-bid contracts passes senate as amendment to Department of Defense authorization bill.

August 11, 2006: Obama visits Xavier University in New Orleans to give Commencement address

August 14, 2006: Obama and Coburn ask FEMA to address ballooning no-bid contracts for Gulf Coast reconstruction

Sept. 29, 2006: Obama and Coburn legislation to prevent abuse of no-bid contracts in the wake of disaster passes Senate to be sent to President’s desk to become law.

Feb. 2007-Present: As Obama begins his Presidential campaign he references Katrina as a part of his stump speech as he travels around the country in his familiar line, “That we are not a country which preaches compassion and justice to others while we allow bodies to float down the streets of a major American city. That is not who we are.”

June 20, 2007: Obama co-sponsors Gulf Coast Housing Recovery Act of 2007 introduced by Senator Chris Dodd.

July 27, 2007: Obama and colleagues get a measure in the Homeland Security bill that will

investigate FEMA trailers that may contain the toxic chemical, formaldehyde.

Aug. 26, 2007: Obama outlines a detailed Hurricane Katrina recovery plan.

December 18, 2007: Obama calls on President Bush to protect affordable housing in New Orleans.

February 16, 2008: Obama releases statement on toxic Gulf Coast trailers.

And something tells me he's not finished speaking to the problems in the Crescent City.

More McCain Blunders - Iraq (again), Iran (again), and New Orleans

2008-06-06T13:16:00.007-05:00

Because I've been away for awhile, I haven't been able to keep up with all of the recent John McCain goofs. Still, the last seven days have shown us that even upon reflection the best McCain can do is compound the errors with more mistakes.

On his least knowledgeable topic, the Middle East, his seemingly unending streak of misstatements, foul-ups, and lies continued last week with his assertion that troop levels in Iraq were below what they were before the Republican escalation of the war in January 2007. WRONG!

In fact, troop levels are higher now. So he tried to “correct” that the next day by saying he meant they would be below pre-surge levels by July.

Again, that simply wasn’t true. The ending of already Republican-extended troop deployments will force levels to reduce somewhat this summer, but they will still be a full 10,000 troops above what they were before the January 2007 troop escalation.

The week began on Monday with McCain speaking to the conservative Jewish group, AIPAC, and bashed Barack Obama for proposing to speak with other countries before beginning to bomb them. McCain made his point by speaking about the divestment campaign against South Africa and how that lead to the end of apartheid. If only he were president, he would begin a divestment campaign against Iran as well.

That was all good, except for three BIG problems.

First, the Senate already proposed an Iran divestment bill last year. It was written by Barack Obama. Oops. In case you think it was a democrat version, it wasn't. In fact, the bill was co-sponsored by conservative republican Sam Brownback.

Second, John McCain voted AGAINST the bill he's now proposing. Double oops.

Third, he had also voted years ago against the divestment bill against South Africa, the very example he held up as a basis for pursuing one against Iran!!! WHAT A MORON!!!

McCain continued his sightseeing tour of forgotten truths this week when he was asked why he twice voted against independent investigations into governmental failings before and after Hurricane Katrina. McCain said, I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy." WRONG!

In 2005 and in 2006, Democrats proposed an independent commission to look into the problems regarding the handling of the worst natural disaster in American history. It would have been comprised of non-federal-government analysts appointed by both Democrats and Republicans.

McCain and his fellow Republicans killed both proposals.

Again, McCain tried to later “correct” his misstatement by saying he voted against the bills because they were filled with pork barrel projects that had “billions for projects and programs that had nothing to do with the recovery of the city of New Orleans.”

Once again, McCain’s attempt to explain away his earlier incorrect recollection was completely wrong. The bills would have provided $3 million for the projects, but had no allocations for anything else.

McCain’s Magical Misery Tour continues.

The Conventional Wisdom is Wrong

2008-05-10T16:01:00.011-05:00

Conventional Wisdom #1 - Hillary's done with the campaign.

She can't win, mind you, but she's not done yet. She loaned herself another $6.4 million before Indiana and North Carolina. She'll likely be loaning herself more money this month before Kentucky, West Virginia, and Oregon. By staying in she can pay back the Indiana/North Carolina loans, and after the other three on May 20th she'll have won two more of them. This will allow herself to raise enough so that she can be paid back for this month's loans to herself.

It's all about her financially breaking even now. It's not about the presidential election anymore because she can't realistically do that. Even if she were to subvert the process or overtly take advantage of what would have to be an egregious error by Obama, it would so fracture the Democratic Party as to make her unelectable.

Obama's in. He just has to be patient for a few more weeks.

Conventional Wisdom #2 - Obama and McCain differ on Hamas.

While Cindy McCain was saying Thursday morning that John McCain would not run an attacking campaign, John McCain was running an attacking campaign against Barack Obama by linking Obama to the Palestinian terrorist group.

McCain hypocrisy aside, the fact is that Obama and McCain have exactly the same stance on the now duly elected entity of the Palestinan government. Obama has stated he will not speak to them unless they:

1 - denounce violence,

2 - recognize Israel's right to exist, and

3 - live up to their previously agreed to accords.

The candidates have no differences when it comes to Israel.

Conventional Wisdom #3 - Obama gets the most-favored press.

At a recent Associated Press gathering, reporters on the McCain beat proclaimed themselves to be traveling on McCain's "Straight -Talk Express" while presenting him with his favorite chocolate sprinkle covered doughnuts. At the same gathering, Barack Obama was addressed as Barack Osama.

I think Obama will still be waiting in November to be presented with his favorite doughnuts by the press.

McCain STILL Making Same Iraq Blunder!!!!!

2008-04-11T19:47:00.013-05:00

You'd think by now John McCain would be humiliated into knowing the truth.

If the media wasn't his lapdog, the embarrassment would likely have caused him to admit to senior moments if not absolute stupidity.

Because no one is calling him on it, he continues to show his complete ignorance of reality in Iraq.

He actually doesn't have a clue who's fighting in Iraq. He doesn't know who's killing Americans - you know, his fellow citizens.

To recap, AlQaeda are Sunnis and Iran is Shiia. They aren't the same. They're as different as Red Sox and Yankees. Even more accurately, they're as different as Boston Red Sox and New York Giants - they're both sports teams , so in McCain's world they must be the same thing. After all, they both use a ball in their games.

AlQaeda and Iran - hey, they're both Arabic, right? and they both call God (the same one that Jews and Christians pray to, by the way), "Allah", right? They are all the same in McCain's world.

"So let's kill 'em all," McCain is basically saying, even if they fight along side us as Iran did in Basra last week against the Mahdi Army. And that is despite the fact that AlQaeda in Iraq wasn't there until we invaded, that they have no connection to the international terrorist group because they're just a tiny splinter organization, that they're just as happy killing Shiite Muslims as they are American occupiers because we're all infidels to them, and that they number about 1,000 out of some 8.8 million.

No, John McCain will never let facts get in the way of a good, but wholly incorrect propaganda story the media is only too happy to help him perpetrate on the American people.

So McCain continues to conflate AlQaeda and Iran. Even after being publicly corrected by a former Democrat.

Let's recap the repeated misstatements.

First came the speech in Houston in February when he said Shiia Iran was helping Sunni AlQaeda.

Then he said the same thing on Hugh Hewitt's right-wing radio show in March.

Then he said it twice to reporters on his trip to the Middle East before Joe Lieberman corrected him.

Then there was three days ago at the General Petraeus hearing when he said, "Al Qaeda isn't just an obscure sect of the Shiites... (pause) ... or Sunnis or anybody else." Well they're definitely not Shiites, and not likely anybody else unless they've been recently adopted by the Baptists, or the Mormons, or the fundamentalist born again whatevers, or, as he said, "anybody else."

Finally, Fox Noise yesterday gave him the opportunity to clear up any confusion people may perceive that he has about the situation by hand-feeding him what to say:

Fox Noise: "Do you understand the difference between Sunni and Shiia, and how would you like to respond those who claim you don't?"

McCain: "I've been to Iraq eight times. I know the leaders. I know the situation on the ground. I know that Sunni and AlQaeda are closely tied."

CLOSELY TIED?????

Like buses and subways are closely tied to mass transit?

Like the shape of wheels is closely tied to a circle?

Like football, baseball, and basketball are closely tied to America's three most popular team sports?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. HE STILL CAN'T GET IT RIGHT!

What a blithering idiot.

For the last time (I hope), allow me to explain.

AlQaeda is Sunni.

Saudi Arabia is Sunni.

15 of the 19 AlQaeda 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia under the leadership of AlQaeda in Afghanistan.

0 were from Iraq.

That's because Iraq had 0 AlQaeda until the US invasion.

Iran is Shiia.

AlQaeda's sworn enemy is anyone not Sunni, and Iran is not Sunni.

Got it, McCain? Got it, media?

We're not as stupid as you want us to be.

McCain's "plan" for Iraq - HA!!!!!!!!

2008-04-09T22:15:00.007-05:00

John McCain said on April 7, 2008 - in between his humorously sad, consistent conflation of AlQaeda (Sunni) with Shiite Extremists in Iraq even after being corrected on camera by former Democrat Joe Lieberman - that we don't have to be in Iraq for 100 years or longer provided certain conditions are met.

Iraq merely has to secure U.S. interests by being a country that is:

1 - Stable;

2 - Prosperous;

3 - Democratic;

4 - Not a threat to its neighbors (exception - see number 8 below);

5 - A terrorism fighter;

6 - Happily entertaining international entities (i.e. allows foreign oil companies to remove Iraq's oil for no money whatsoever);

7 - Accepting of all religions; and

8 - Starts treating Iran like an enemy.

Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the United States could meet some of those criteria, too?

I'd especially like the USA to fulfill numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 because we're sorely lacking in each of those under our current Republican dictatorship.

100 years, McCain? Under those conditions we're going to be there closer to 1,000 years.

And there's certainly no better strategy for accomplishing those goals than by having your country controlled and occupied by a foreign military.

Think for a minute - do you suppose the USA would be more stable, prosperous, democratic, neighborly, terrorist-fighting, and increasingly tolerant of religions if, say, we were occupied by the armies from Japan (enemy in WWII) or China (enemy in Korea), countries who now hold most of our ever-increasing national debt?

Naaaaaaah, i didn't think so either. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have spent so many lives fighting them before.

Of course, those were Democratic presidents who fought those wars so maybe our Republican emperor and his puppet yes-men have a different idea of what democracy and America stand for.

Radio Show Host Randi Rhodes Ridiculously Suspended

2008-04-06T17:19:00.008-05:00

Air America Chief Charlie Kireker suspended Radio Show Host Randi Rhodes because she performed a stand-up routine at a public appearance off the air in which she called Geraldine Ferraro a whore for racist comments made against Barack Obama. Mind you, she was not using the term in the "prostitute" connotation, but rather in the "selling out your principles" definition. She then called Hillary Clinton one as well for not calling out Ferraro on her bigoted remarks.

Two weeks later, Kireker took action.

First, video shows the audience understood the context and laughed. Second, Rhodes was warmly received after the event. Finally, Rhodes has been on the air for two weeks with no public reaction.

So here are my Top Ten reasons Why Air America Overreacted:

10. Kireker got upset because he didn't understand another word used by erudite radio show host Lionel today and Randi is tired of having to be the one to explain it to him - several times.

9. Kireker heard right-wing wacko Neal Boortz might be looking for a new gig.

8. Randi's last name isn't Rhodes, but Kireker doesn't understand the whole "Show Biz name" thing. Watch out, Lionel.

7. Cruise Ship envy - Randi -2, AA - 1.

6. Kireker wants to be memorialized in name for the NEXT San Francisco Sewerage Plant.

5. Total misunderstanding - When Randi told a Clinton supporter she was "right", she actually meant "correct" - not "anti-left".

4. Isn't this Air "America"? Oh yeah, I suppose South American dictatorships can technically be called "America".

3. Kireker figured that his network had too much "Talk, talk, talk" and not enough action. He's hoping Hulk Hogan returns his calls soon.

2. She can't come back until she agrees to wear a Tucker Carlson bow tie.

1. Three words - Fox America Radio!!!

Bush, McCain = Baghdad Bob

2008-03-29T18:23:00.006-06:00

Do you remember the Iraqi Information Minister under Saddam Hussein, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf aka "Baghdad Bob"? This was the guy who would tell the English-speaking press corp that the Americans were nowhere near Baghdad while American tanks were passing by in the street behind him.

This week, President Bush and John McCain both reached that level of unreality in speaking on the same subject - life in Iraq at present.

Friday saw a fifth straight day of rocket fire and mortar fire into Green Zone of Baghdad. Several Americans and Iraqis were killed in these attacks on this American-fortified "safe" zone.

Basra, the second largest city in Iraq, has been under siege for more than a week. Markets are closed. People can't go to work, can't get food, have no electricity, have no access to medicine, and can't even get fuel for generators.

Shiite extremists - misnamed as al-Qaeda three times last week by John McCain just before letting the world know that Purim is the Jewish Halloween - are led in Basra by the largest of these groups - the Mahdi Army led by Muqtada al-Sadr who control government, traffic, and killing.

On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malicki launched an assault on Basra, which led to more killing and a further spread of widespread violence in Shiite-held districts in Baghdad and other places in Iraq where Shiite militiamen hold sway over local and Federal governments.

President Bush said this week:

"The surge is doing what it was designed to do. It's helping Iraqis reclaim security and restart political and economic life." He said, "Normalcy is returning back to Iraq."

HUH????

John McCain, who is looking to continue each and every George W. Bush policy down to the letter, commented this week:

"Dramatic reduction in violence has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi. People are going back to work. Markets are open."

ARE THESE PEOPLE INSANE?

WHAT FICTION ARE THEY READING??

ARE THEY CAPABLE OF SEEING REALITY???

DO THEY THINK WE ARE SO STUPID AS TO BELIEVE THIS GIBBERISH????

Fellow Americans, I give you Baghdad Bobs - George W. Bush and John McCain.

Media Missteps of the Week

2008-03-09T12:21:00.008-06:00

John McCain and John Hagee - John McCain appeared in person this week to embrace and accept the endorsement of a hate-filled, anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic bigot whose faith tells him the greatest contribution he can make in life is to take the money of his followers to enrich himself on the way to bringing about Armageddon via a cataclysmic World War III event. How do you suppose the media reacted to this?

Yawns were in evidence.

How do you suppose they would have reacted if an alleged religious leader who called the Catholic church a "whore religion" and said God destroyed New Orleans because of its sinners endorsed Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Even more telling would be how Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would have reacted. I dare say neither would have bothered to appear onstage with this human reptile much less embrace his radical followers' beliefs into their points of view.

The media darling in the presidential race has been declared. Hint: he's the old, white man who has pledged to bring us four more years of following the Bush regime to the letter.

Barack Obama wins Texas - I know this may come as a bit of a surprise. After all, didn't Hillary Clinton win Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio to Obama's Vermont on Tuesday?

No, the media was incorrect and are not in any hurry to correct the information.

Barack Obama won a projected 98 Texas delegates to Hillary Clinton's 95. His Texas caucus victory was much greater than Hillary's primary victory. The momentum didn't shift very much at all. She gained fewer than 10 delegates Tuesday night while trailing Obama by 152. She's still so far behind that she doesn't have a realistic mathematical chance of winning the pledged delegate count.

Hillary Clinton does not have more legislative experience than Barack Obama -The media has continually harped on Hillary Clinton's "3 a.m. phone call" ad THAT ONLY RAN IN TEXAS (a state she lost) to repeatedly play nationally on her behalf to give her free publicity on the issue of experience in government. Although Clinton has two more years as a U.S. Senator than Barack Obama, he actually has more legislative experience. Regarding security clearance as First Lady, Hillary Clinton had none. If you count her time as First Lady in government, than perhaps Barbara Bush or Laura Bush should be considered for John McCain's running mate.

Of course, McCain has more legislative experience than either Democrat, but then again, it's not like longtime Senators offer any special advantage to becoming great presidents, do they, President Dole or President Kerry?

The Democratic Party, for whichever candidate it nominates, is losing ground every day that Hillary Clinton is telling America that she and McCain have the most experience. On the other hand, maybe she's looking to be McCain's running mate. She'd certainly have a much greater chance of taking over the presidency during his administration than if she ran with Obama.

Nothing Unusual

2008-02-17T18:52:00.007-06:00

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush overriding the U.S. Constitution to increase power and control over money and life itself.

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush protecting corporations over people.

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush showing contempt and disrespect for the bottom 99 percent of the U.S. population.

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush ignoring the rule of law.

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush not caring about freedom and liberty.

There is nothing unusual about George W. Bush terrorizing his own country by promoting weakness, hatred, and fear of outside terrorism to accomplish the above.

What is unusual is when all of the above statements come together in one act. It became clear this week when George W. Bush actually stated his intention to veto FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act designed to actually protect Americans against acts of terrorism, if Congress didn't also grant immunity for past criminal acts carried out by phone companies at the request of Bush.

Mind you, the FISA bill doesn't expire until August. So why is he throwing a tantrum about it now? Because the immunity for criminal behavior expired yesterday.

He's actually willing to create a greater threat of terrorism against the United States because he's not getting immunity for his business criminal buddies having broken the law at his command. He's doing it by telling (i.e. lying to) the American people by saying holding up immunity of these past criminal activities helps terrorists win, and. by golly, he'll actually help terrorists win just to prove it.

The Republican Congress made a big show of storming out of Congress (after the media had assembled their cameras, naturally) so they wouldn't have to do their job of checks and balances against their savior, George W. Bush. It also helped that they were scheduled to vote on contempt charges against John Bolton and Harriet Miers for ignoring Congress' orders to testify before them. Imagine - two reasons for Republicans in Congress to show their cowardice at one time.

And what was the law the corporate criminals broke the Republicans favor? They spied on American citizens, collected email, telephone, text messages, web activity, and every other bit of information they could find by peering into the private thoughts of Americans, recorded it, and refuse to destroy it or turn over this illegally-obtained information to anyone.

They stole our privacy and they don't want to give it back. But most of all, they don't want to be held responsible for their criminal activities - even it if kills us.

I can't believe this is what Americans wanted to vote for in 2000 and 2004.

Recent Abominations of the Radical Right

2008-02-16T18:57:00.011-06:00

John McCain - Last November, John McCain sponsored an anti-torture bill that came up for vote this week in the Senate. McCain was tortured himself in Vietnam, and spoke out against torture until his meeting with Bush in 2003 when he emerged a Bush-loving neocon through and through. Still, in the interest of clarification, he pushed through this piece of legislation republicans widely opposed.

This week, John McCain voted AGAINST the exact bill he himself sponsored just a few short months ago. It's time to crown him the Pander Bear for not even having the courage to vote for his own bill because he wanted to prove that he, too, can be a pawn of the radical right.

Republican Gun Nuts - Six students at Northern Illinois died this week after a student off his medication for mental illness brought three guns - that despite his mental medical condition were legally purchased, owned, and registered - onto campus and opened fire on students. Here's a recap of recent similar incidents.

June 2000 - University of Washington, Seattle - Two dead.

August 2000 - University of Arkansas - Two dead.

May 2001 - University of Pacific Lutheran - Two dead.

January 2002 - Appalachian State School of Law - Three dead.

October 2002- University of Arizona Nursing College at Tucson - Four dead.

May 2003 - Case Western Reserve University - One dead from a seven hour shooting.

September 2006 - Shepherd University shooting - Three dead, father and his two sons.

April 2007 - University of Washington, Seattle (again) - Two dead.

April 2007 - Virginia Tech University - 32 dead.

September 2007 - Delaware State University - One dead.

October 2007 - University of Memphis - One dead.

December 2007 - LSU - Two dead.

LAST WEEK - Louisiana Technical College at Baton Rouge - Three dead.

THIS WEEK - Northern Illinois - Six dead.

This doesn't even include the wounded or maimed for life. I'm only including colleges, not high schools or student shootings at malls.

Northern Illinois had a plan for this type of situation. It was implemented as well as it could have been, which means this was the best possible outcome under the circumstances.

So what was the radical right's response to this horrible tragedy?

THEY SAID THAT WE NEED TO GET MORE GUNS ON CAMPUSES. They said that if more guns were carried by more students, then that would solve the problem.

I can't believe this is what Americans wanted to vote for in 2000 and 2004.

And now, fighting out of the blue corner...

2008-02-03T15:06:00.003-06:00

Wow, what a difference a week makes. South Carolina and Florida primaries plus a debate by each party has defined the presidential race as no other week has so far. And next week may prove almost as significant with 22 states voting on Super Tuesday.

This past week saw the expected dropout of Rudy Giulliani on the republican side, and the unexpected dropout of John Edwards on the democratic side.

Giulliani, running for President of 9/11, came in a distant third in Florida. He spent more money per delegate earned (two in all) than any other candidate in history. John McCain’s slim victory over Mitt Romney gave him all of Florida’s delegates by the republican’s rule of winner-take-all. That makes McCain almost a sure thing as the republican nominee. He’ll likely sew it all up this week in the Super Tuesday primaries.

John Edwards’ problem was one of being ignored by the media at large compared to his more well-heeled opponents. Although it’s ridiculous in this or any other day and age to judge a candidate on the basis of race and gender, the media likely found it hard to consider the one white male among the final three candidates to be a candidate of change, and did not cover his campaign as much as it did the other two.

THE BLUE TEAM – the Democrats

Their debate Friday evening in Los Angeles was the greatest debate I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. Never before have issues been really debated in such detail one by one. The night before, the four republicans spoke, at their request, for a reduced 90-minute session. The two democrats, on the other hand, sat and discussed substantively for the full two hours CNN wanted. It was seen by a record number of viewers.

Hillary Clinton – If she had a different last name, she wouldn’t be so hated by conservatives. The fact that republicans mention her so much more often indicates that this is the candidate they prefer to run against. In fact, she has voted with the republicans quite a lot. Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution, every Iraq funding bill, and the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran. She voted for both Patriot acts and the nominations of Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Despite all this, the right-wing slime machine propagandizes her as a liberal. She’s no Mary Landrieu or Joe Lieberman type of democratic conservative, but she’s not that far off in many cases.

Her explanation for the initial Iraq vote is, “If I knew then what I know now,” but not ever saying it was a mistake. Clearly, it was a vote for Bush to invade and she wanted to stay on the popular side of the resolution.

On the other hand, Clinton has been unfairly judged for once having sat on the board of Wal-Mart. She did so at a time that Sam Walton was still alive and the theme of Wal-Mart was “Buy American.”

Despite a conservative voting record, Clinton brings some great strengths. She is still the front-runner in the campaign. Her name recognition and the backing of her spouse, a popular former president, is a plus. Neither she nor he will back down from a fight. She will not be “swift-boated” like John Kerry was in 2004.

Her domestic agenda is also stronger on healthcare where she realistically doesn’t promise universal healthcare in the first term, but looks to achieving that goal by the second. She stands for negotiating drug prices for Medicare and expanding electronic records and the Family Medical Leave Act.

Clinton is strong on her energy policy to cut tax breaks for oil companies (Exxon made $41 billion last year – an all-time record), and cutting their other subsidies.

On the minus side, besides being weak with her conservative voting record on Iraq, she also hasn’t gotten very specific on her economic platform. Instead, she has outlined goals and principles such as stabilizing social security, becoming more independent from foreign oil, balancing the budget, and returning to the tax structure of the far more prosperous Bill Clinton years.

Her immigration stance has also been conservative in calling for building a security fence with Mexico, but centering that by also helping undocumented workers find a path to citizenship.

She has oodles of money and has the delegate lead because she has the most “super” delegates, the independent ones not tied by primary and caucus voting to one candidate. In other words, that lead could reverse itself against her if the momentum shifts.

Barack Obama – The 20th century had three great orators – Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. Barack Obama is the first great orator of the 21st century. He is electrifying in front of large crowds whereas Clinton is better in more intimate settings.

Obama and Clinton tend to be strong in different areas.

Obama spoke out against the Iraq war in 2002. He calls for combat troops to leave Iraq by March 31 and calls for a phased in redeployment to other parts of the Middle East to conduct counterterrorism operations.

He has specifics to his economic platform calling for tying the minimum wage to inflation and spending $250 million on public-private business “incubators” to help entrepreneurs create start-up companies.

On immigration he doesn’t back the republican proposed partial-fence. He wants more border patrols utilizing more advanced technology, and to require employers to verify workers’ immigration status.

On energy, he calls for a four percent per year increase in fuel efficiency and a “cap and trade” system. This gives industry the choice of cutting carbon emissions, or helping the country raise money for new energy programs. He backs increased research into nuclear programs, but stops short of calling for building new nuclear power plants. He wants 20 percent of America’s energy needs met by renewable sources by 2020.

On the weaker side, Obama’s healthcare plan is not universal, but it does call for reform to the private insurance market to promote competition in pricing and quality. It would have a national plan to insure those without workplace or private insurance, and guarantee insurance for children.

Domestically, Obama’s voting record has been slightly more conservative than Clinton’s. This, he says, will allow him to reach across the aisle to be more of a unifier. It may be a disadvantage, as a relative political newcomer, to take that stance. He is less experienced in tough campaigns than Clinton and may be less inclined to take the fight back against republicans when they begin smearing him. And his spouse will certainly not have the clout of Bill Clinton to help team up against attacks.

Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, truly has the momentum following a big win in South Carolina, and just raised more than $30 million in January alone so he, too, has oodles of money. He also has more donors from which to tap again than Clinton. Republicans don't speak as much about Obama leading one to believe they are far more afraid of him.

On the other hand, Obama doesn’t have Clinton’s name recognition; and, when the right-wing slime machine does speak of him, they love to emphasize his middle name, “Hussein”, and lie about his Christianity to appeal to bigoted, uneducated conservatives. Prejudiced Americans are also more likely to be anti-African American than anti-woman. Obama’s voters are younger than Clinton’s, an age group that doesn’t go to the polls as much as older voters. Obama also trails in large amounts to Clinton among Hispanics.

SUMMARY – Both candidates are brilliant, charismatic, and “alive”, especially compared to the republican frontrunner. Could they run on a ticket together? Yes, if Obama wins, but not likely if Clinton wins. I think she has Bill Richardson on her short list.

Just dropped out – John Edwards took an anti-corporatist position on the issues, and brought to the fore the issue of poverty by uniting the country into his populist message of “One America.” He was also the only candidate to make the rebuilding of New Orleans a central campaign issue. I did not expect him to drop out before Super Tuesday, but he decided to put the uniting of the party and the country before his own ambitions by allowing that big voting block day to help prevent a brokered convention. He spoke to both Clinton and Obama so they could assure him they would keep his central programs important in their campaigns as well. Both spoke highly of Edwards at the recent debate. Edwards has not yet endorsed another candidate.

I hardly knew ya' - Dennis Kuncinich was the most left-wing of the candidates, and made even less of an impact into this year’s race than he did in 2004. He has not made an endorsement, but in Iowa asked his supporters to consider Obama as a second choice.

Bill Richardson was the most widely experienced candidate (governor, congressman, ambassador, cabinet member) in the field as well as the only Hispanic. He has not made an endorsement, but is very close to the Clintons. Some feel his candidacy was for the Vice-President’s spot all along.

Chris Dodd and, especially, Joe Biden, were the older and more centrist candidates in the race, but didn’t excite many voters. In that way, they were the Democratic Party’s version of John McCain. Biden was especially intelligent in explaining Congressional votes since the democrats won a razor-thin, but non-veto proof majority in 2006.

Mike Gravell… wait, he’s still in it - officially. He has long since suspended campaigning, he just didn’t tell anybody. Apparently, no one noticed.

WINNER – Clinton has the advantage in Super Tuesday states, but Obama will keep this very close, generating enthusiasm and lots of money. If Obama does well on Super Tuesday, that may indicate a momentum shift he can ride to the nomination. A large voter turnout helps Obama. The surest prediction is that one of these two will be our next president. Democratic voters are far outnumbering republican voters in states that have already gone to the polls.

And now, fighting out of the red corner...

2008-01-26T19:01:00.001-06:00

I know it’s been awhile, but now that we’re in the heat of the election season, it’s time for me to jump back into the blogosphere.

DISCLAIMER - I am currently a candidate for the office of Democratic State Central Committee in Louisiana - District 82 - to be elected February 9, 2008 in conjunction with the Louisiana Presidential Primaries. I have already been elected by default to the office of Democratic Jefferson Parish Executive Committee.

In case you missed it, we’ve got a presidential election going on around the country. Here’s a synopsis of who’s who. Like they say in baseball, you can’t tell the players without a program.

THE RED TEAM – the Republicans

John McCain – Lots of problems with this guy. His 72 years would make him the oldest elected president in history. His temper is also well known. But his biggest drawback is that he’s running on a platform of continuing Bush’s policies to the letter. He wants to continue borrowing over $340 million a day from China so we can stay in Iraq. He has stated that as far as he’s concerned we might be there another 100 years. He said in the recent Florida debate that he knows of no general, including General Petraeus, who doesn't think we can't sustain ourselves in Iraq indefinitely. Actually, General Petraeus said a year ago the army was stretched and straining. Just last month Army Chief of Staff General George Casey said we're deploying at unsustainable rates. Sorry Mr. McCain, but that was incredibly wrong.

His former “maverick” image keeps him from being among the favorites of the radical right, but that image really disappeared after a couple of years of Bush’s first term when he suddenly gave in to Bush’s torture demands almost as suddenly as if he’d been tortured into it himself. Maybe we should check the White House basement for pods. In any case, he voted against Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy TWICE, but he now wants to make permanent what he previously didn’t even want to make temporary. As Paul Begala recently said, it’s sort of like promising to marry a person you wouldn’t even date.

He also stands out as the only republican who is pro-immigration, which keeps the radical right punditry from backing him. He once SPONSORED Campaign Finance Reform in the Senate, but has not agreed to limit himself to matching federal funding for the election.

He also pretty much plays up to his audience, no matter their issue. He’s been an Episcopalian all his life, but upon speaking to a group of evangelicals, said he’s been Baptist for many years. Who knew? Certainly no one on this planet did.

Mitt Romney – This is the stereotypical rich, country-club republican. If he wins the republican nomination, they may have to change their symbol from the elephant to the panda bear – or, perhaps that should be spelled, “pander” bear. This guy changes his stance more often than Senator Larry Craig.

Who wakes up at age 55 to completely reverse their positions on everything from a woman’s reproductive healthcare choice to marriage between same-gender couples except someone who wants to pander to a particular audience when beginning a new campaign?

He is, by far, the most hated person running for president. The other candidates despise him as being a look-down-his-nose-at-you type of snob.

He is also, by far, the wealthiest person running for president. His worth is estimated between 500 million and 750 million dollars. Why anyone would ever give this man a penny is beyond me. All he has to do is reach into his wallet to fully fund his run for the White House. He has a history of buying up companies, selling the pieces off to make great profits, then laying off some workers and cutting back the others’ pay and benefits. So much for this guy improving our economy.

His Mormon religion turns off the fundamentalists who don’t believe in anything so tremendously different from their Bible.

He has made more misstatements than anyone. This former governor of Massachusetts made an analogy to the PATRIOTS winning the World Series (the Boston Red Sox won; the Patriots are Boston's football team). He said his sons helping him campaign for president was the same as others’ sons fighting in Iraq. He used to say he and his father marched with Martin Luther King in Detroit. This election cycle that changed to just him saying he saw his father marching with King in Detroit. When it was revealed that Romney’s father wasn’t in Detroit when King marched there, he changed it to his having seen his father as having marched with King philosophically, but never meant to suggest he saw it with his own eyes. This is from a Mormon whose religion considered black people to be subordinate to white people. He and his wife also laughed about abusing his dog by strapping him in a cage to the roof of the car when driving on an extended road trip.

Speaking of his father, who was a governor that once ran for president himself, Romney has tried to portray himself as a Washington outsider. Romney's mother also once ran for Michigan senator. Somehow the Washington outsider shoe just doesn’t fit any way you look at it.

Ron Paul – A former libertarian whose supporters are crazily enthusiastic, and I mean that in a sincerely complimentary way. “Ron Paul revolution. Give us back our constitution.” They certainly have the best chants, if not the best chance.

Paul is the only republican candidate telling the truth about why we got attacked on 9/11 (because religious extremists felt that the USA building of the now-torn-down Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia was an invasion of their holy lands), that we need to get out of Iraq now, and that the people of the USA deserve to have their freedoms reinstated. He is not well-liked by the other republican candidates, either.

Unfortunately, Paul is also a candidate with a history of bigoted writings filled with racist white supremacy arguments in favor of segregation. He doesn't want anything to do with the United Nations, doesn't want government regulating business practices of any sort, and has pretty much taken an isolationist stance in world affairs.

Rudy 9iu11iani – Running to be President of Florida. He has taken the unusual stance of ignoring all prior states just to win Florida. After a string of sixth place finishes everywhere else, he is, as of this writing, running third in Florida polls. Former democratic candidate Joe Biden had the best line of any candidate to date when he said of Giulliani that every sentence uttered by the former mayor has three things - a noun, a verb, and “9/11”.

If he doesn't win Florida, he won't have a chance. He’s not endorsed by the Firefighters, or First Responders, or even the major newspaper of his own city for the republican primary. He’s not even endorsed by his own children! His public relations firm still today works for U.A.E. who sponsors terrorist acts against the United States. He used tax dollars to chauffer around his then-mistress in the Hamptons. His right-hand man is involved in illegal activities with the mob. Like Romney used to be, he’s in favor of a woman’s reproductive healthcare choice, and marriage between same-gender couples. He’s also considered a bully and one of the meanest candidates in the race. He also has a particular penchant for crossdressing. These kinds of activities tend to not promote the full backing of republican voters. His southern campaign manager is Senator David “Prostitution, not Constitution” Vitter, and, inexplicably, has the endorsement of Pat “Christian Broadcast Network” Robertson. How’s that working out for you, Rudy?

Mike Huckabee – Until Fred Thompson dropped out of the race, he was the second dumbest candidate for president. Congratulations, Mike. Now you’re number one. A Baptist minister, Huckabee does not believe in evolution. I wonder how he feels about gravity and photosynthesis.

The radical religious right likes him, but almost no conservative pundit does. He's charming, but whenever he opens his mouth about foreign affairs he sticks his foot right in it. The recent republican debate in Florida produced this gem from Huckabee about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction: “It doesn't mean they weren't there. Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean that it wasn't planted.” The “Easter Egg” reference does tend to downplay the lies and extremely costly nature of a war based on false statements. Doesn’t this also somehow harken back to George W. Bush’s horribly offensive joke at the Correspondent’s dinner a few years ago where he’s looking around the oval office asking where those weapons of mass destruction are hiding?

It got worse after the debate when Huckabee was asked to explain that comment. He said he meant that Saddam Hussein probably moved them out of the country to Jordan before the inspectors found them. Jordan? JORDAN??? Even among those who believe this theory of moving the weapons out of Iraq, the country in question was SYRIA. Oh well - Jordan, Syria - they’re all the same to Huckabee. Sort of how Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan are the same as Iraq to George W. Bush.

His son was also accused of abusing and killing a dog while at summer camp. This is probably the only thing he has in common with Mitt Romney.

I hardly knew ya’ – Fred Thompson was absolutely the dumbest and laziest candidate in recent memory. The pundits of the radical right loved him.

Duncan Hunter had the endorsement of Ann Coulter. How’d that work out for you, Duncan?

Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo don’t believe in evolution, either. Tancredo was running on the one issue of immigration (i.e. prejudice is good when it’s against Mexicans), so he was the anti-McCain - big with the "keep-out-the-furiners" crowd, but no one else.

Alan Keyes… wait, he’s still in it. They just don’t allow him to be seen nor heard from anymore.

WINNER – Close between Mitt Romney and John McCain, who really don't like each other. Romney can get the backing of the rich, radical right. He’s hateful enough of the poor, women, foreigners, and other minorities. The fundies will say he’s at least a Christian – albeit of some weird sort. He’s young enough to handle the office and, now at least, has their position on denying women their reproductive healthcare choices and opposing same-gender marriage.

McCain doesn’t sufficiently hate Mexicans to satisfy most republicans, and, at one time, didn’t fall into complete lockstep with the neocon agenda. But McCain does now. He also loves borrowing money from China to be paid back by our children and grandchildren, plus interest, to spend, along with American blood, on Iraq for at least as long as he lives. McCain has the clear momentum right now, but Romney has unlimited money to spend. It's not the betting favorite, but I think Romney still has a shot if he wins Florida. That will be tough considering the Florida governor, Charlie Crist, has endorsed McCain and may very well be his V-P running mate.

30 Vitally Important Things Republicans Haven't Mentioned in Debates

2007-05-21T18:05:00.000-05:00

After two republican debates, 10 candidates have spoken for three hours about a lot of mostly irrelevant topics with mostly immature, condescending talking points designed to raise emotions while keeping intelligence and insight as far away from the stage as possible.

While they argue about every stem-cell, fighting-them-over-there, 9/11, abortive surge they can stir up, actual, real topics that matter to actual, real Americans are being ignored.

Just off the top of my head, I came up with these 30 as-yet unmentioned topics affecting more than just a few Americans.

1 - Healthcare and 50 million uninsured Americans.

2 - Hurricane Katrina and the (lack of) rebuilding in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast due to lack of promised funding. When democrats added it to the Iraq Accountability Act to further fund George W. Bush’s $560 billion venture in Iraq, Bush called it “pork”.

3 - Upgrades to securing the homeland, or, indeed, any homeland security proposals.

4 - Gas prices and oil company profits both at record levels.

5 - Corrrecting global warming and the environment.

6 - Energy production that doesn’t profit oil companies or pollute the planet (i.e. solar, wind, etc.).

7 - Numerous republican tax cuts that overwhelmingly favored the upper one percent.

8 - A $9 TRILLION (by Election Day 2008) republican national debt (which means that 100 million taxpayers each owe $90,000 to pay back what George W. Bush has borrowed so far - if no further anticipated debt or interest were to accrue).

9 - Underfunding education.

10 - Increasing gun violence.

11 - Alberto Gonzales (in conjunction with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush) and his illegal and/or unethical actions as White House Council to the President.

12 - Alberto Gonzales (in conjunction with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush) and his illegal and/or unethical actions as Attorney General.

13 - Scooter Libby (in conjunction with Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush) and the outing of a covert CIA operative and undercover program to prevent the truth from getting out about Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the complete lack of a nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction.

14 - How three prior escalations in Iraq have failed, and what the backup plan is if/when the newest one doesn't work as they promised.

15 - How every escalation in Iraq has been prefaced with a give-it-90-days/six-months promise, but has never been addressed when the 90 days/six months ends.

16 - Unbid contracts in Iraq for companies such as Haliburton, which will pay a huge sum of money to Dick Cheney upon his leaving the vice-presidency in January 2009.

17 - Healthcare for veterans and wounded American military defeated by the republican Congress in April 2005.

18 - Conditions for families of military.

19 - The lack of a reserve military force.

20 - The lack of desert training for troops deployed to the Middle East.

21 - The lack of proper equipment, such as vehicle and body armor, night vision, helmet liners, and radio communication for military.

22 - The depletion of states’ national guard units.

23 - Substandard military pay.

24 - George W. Bush's attempts of raiding Social Security to help pay for Iraq. (Maybe Al Gore's "Social Security lockbox" phrase wasn't so silly after all.)

25 - George W. Bush's proposed Social Security plan involving gambling with the funds on stock market investments (after the first $2.2 TRILLION go to the wealthiest Americans). I guess he doesn't quite understand that Social Security is an insurance plan, not a pension plan.

26 - The administration's rejection of cheaper generic drugs for the elderly's Medicare.

27 - The administration's rejection of the ability to negotiate volume discounts on drugs for the elderly's Medicare.

28 - The administration's rejection of cheaper drugs from Canada for the elderly's Medicare.

29 - Richard Nixon (hey, they really like talking about other dead Republican presidents - Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and, back when republicans were the progressive party, Abraham Lincoln).

30 - George W. Bush. Have you noticed? They're afraid to even say his name having mentioned it only once in each debate.

Jerry Falwell has made this world a better place...

2007-05-15T22:14:00.000-05:00

...now that he has left it.

To paraphrase an old joke it is said that when someone has died you should only say good.

Jerry Falwell died today. Good.

Besides conning and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from those who would turn to him for prayerful support, Falwell also promoted hatred of virtually every demographic that was non-male, non-White, non-heterosexual, or non-Christian (the right kind of Christian - not the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. type of Christian who believed that God loved all his children equally).

He supported segregation.
He supported apartheid.
He blamed everything from AIDS to the 9/11 attacks on non-males, non-Whites, non-heterosexuals, and non-Christians (or the wrong kind of Christians).

And he did it all in the name of God who he said committed these acts against humans out of anger and revenge.

If God is omnipotent, why would he be subject to primitive human emotions such as anger and revenge? If God is all-loving, why would he perform such acts of hatred against his children?

No, the real hatred, anger, and revenge came from within the heart and mind of Jerry Falwell - a criminal, bigoted, and evil man who may now have a lot of explaining to do to a certain supreme being.

Move Over Jack Taylor, Here Comes Barry Bonds

2007-05-11T18:09:00.000-05:00

You're probably thinking that headline is a mistake. Surely, you surmise, I meant to say, “Move Over Hank Aaron, Here Comes Barry Bonds”. It is, after all, Hank Aaron whose career Home Run record Barry Bonds will soon be breaking.

No, I meant Jack Taylor – the holder of the single most unbreakable record in major league baseball although that’s not the reason for the comparison.

You probably haven’t heard of Jack Taylor because, due to changes in the conditions of the game, his record is now almost meaningless just like the career Home Run record is about to be.

Taylor pitched in the major leagues for 10 years in the first decade of the 20th century, mostly for the Chicago Cubs, then a powerhouse team.

Four years Taylor won 20 games, but that’s not his record. He was a decent enough hitter that he even played 15 games at 3B, but that’s not his record.

His unequaled feat is that from 1901 to 1906 Jack Taylor pitched 185 consecutive Complete Games.

As an addendum to that record, Jack Taylor also holds the record for the highest percentage of career Complete Games pitched at 97.2% (278 Complete Games out of 286 total Games Pitched).

So why isn’t Jack Taylor in the Hall of Fame? Why isn’t the best pitcher award called the Jack Taylor Award? Why isn’t Jack Taylor touted for the pitching ironman record the way Cal Ripken, Jr. and Lou Gehrig are held up today as the top two all-time record holders for Consecutive Games played by position players?

After all, Taylor TWICE pitched both halves of a doubleheader, and once eclipsed that by pitching a complete game in a 19-inning extra-inning affair.

But we don’t celebrate Taylor, a fine pitcher of his day, for his records because almost no one pitches Complete Games today. The record has become a yawn. Pitchers today face conditions far different from 100 years ago.

Pitchers today throw harder to be more effective while they’re in the game. Pitchers 100 years ago threw more for movement and location, but saved something on their velocity so they could go longer in games. The ball wasn't wound as tightly so Home Runs were much less common in the dead-ball era before 1919.

Rosters today carry 10 to 12 pitchers per game to allow for frequent replacements. Rosters 100 years ago carried six or seven pitchers because there wasn’t enough talent to go around.

The last time a pitcher threw as many as four consecutive Complete Games was Roy Halladay in 2003. Halladay would have had to do that 45 more times in a row to get close to Taylor.

Likewise, the conditions of the game played by Barry Bonds are completely different from those played by Hank Aaron.

Bonds has never denied the accusations of two San Francisco Chronicle reporters who wrote a book detailing illegal cheating by Bonds with steroid and Human Growth Hormone (HGH) abuse.

If you think basbeall's steroid and HGH cheating are all in the past, think again. Human Growth Hormone is STILL NOT TESTED by Major League Baseball.

In 2006, Barry Bonds announced he was going to play for the United States in the World Baseball Classic tournament. He pulled out shortly after the tournament announced it would test for Human Growth Hormone.

From the time Hank Aaron came up in the 1950s, and throughout his brilliant career into the 1970s, he never had breakthrough years going from 20 home runs to 70 home runs in a season. Aaron never gained 40 pounds of pure muscle. Aaron never went from a size 10 shoe to a size 13½. Aaron never gained several hat sizes.

Aaron relied on great talent and hard work. Aaron was able to face hateful and racist remarks from Babe Ruth admirers with quiet dignity and self-respect when he eclispsed the Ruth's career Home Run mark.

Accusations against Bonds of wife-cheating, tax-cheating, and baseball-cheating combined with his disdain for the media and fans have long since claimed any respect due from either himself or from those who love the game.

It bears repeating. Human Growth Hormone is STILL NOT TESTED by Major League Baseball.

Records are made to be broken, and the falling of Aaron’s mark was inevitable. As the career Home Run record is overcome by Barry Bonds, we don’t mourn the passing of the memories of Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron, or their names in past record books.

What we mourn is the passing of the formerly time-honored record’s importance.

Barry Bonds has not only diminished the value of this once-revered record, but he has also become as relevant as Jack Taylor, the holder of a record that just doesn’t mean as much anymore.

Absolutely, Unbelievbaly TRUE Political News!!!!

2007-05-04T19:00:00.000-05:00

I'm not kidding. No satire this time. These U.S. political news stories from this week are 100 percent TRUE!

1. Arab tourists spend $12 Billion a year traveling abroad. Got that? $12 BILLION! These aren't militant Islamic extremists I'm talking about. These are law abiding, rank and file citizens just like you and me, except they spend a LOT of money traveling abroad. This week, Dubai hosted a foreign travel tourism convention where representatives from other countries were able to show off how wonderful it is to travel to their countries. Instead of sending promoters for the United States, U.S. officials sent two guys from the Homeland Security office who were there to explain to potential visitors how they'd be fingerprinted and tracked upon their entrance into the United States! The stupidity of discrimination and prejudice is ASTOUNDING.

2. At Thursday night's Republican presidential debate, Tommy Thompson actually said employers should be allowed to discriminate against workers who were gay. One wonders if he would also allow employers to discriminate against workers who were straight, but adulterers. Would he have employment applications exploring one's sexual preferences and conduct, or perhaps simply upside-down pink triangle patches so we can identify those people at a glance? I'm sure the evangelically-preferred party would have no problem with that considering that John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich have a history of eight divorces between them, mistresses living with them in the house along with their minor children (who have now become of age and disowned the father, and vice versa), an ex-wife first finding about their impending divorce when seeing it announced on television, an ex-wife having to sign divorce papers while dying of cancer in her hospital bed, and even a marriage to a cousin!

3. Despite a sitting, two-term president from the same party, the republican candidates went to great extremes not to mention George W. Bush's name. In 90 minutes, the candidates mentioned the president's name only once. Sen. Sam Brownback said,"I'd leave that up to President Bush" when asked about pardoning Dick Cheney's senior deputy Scooter Libby who was found guilty on four counts of obstructing justice and lying while trying to cover up for the outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame thus destroying years of covert CIA work in order to prevent the American people from knowing that the republicans were misleading them about any threat from Iraq in the run-up to the invasion. On the other hand, they mentioned the late Ronald Reagan's name an astounding 19 times!

4. Three republican candidates actually admitted to not believing in evolution - Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo. I wonder if they believe in that whole "Earth revolves around the Sun" theory.

And, like, my sneak preview predicted, the republicans had a lot of hate-speach against Mexicans, gays, women, etc., although maybe not in the exact words I predicted. Still, the evidence of Alzheimer's Disease among the candidates was very Reaganesque.

Sneak Preview of the Repbulican Debate

2007-04-29T16:15:00.000-05:00

Names are hidden to protect the clueless, but here's a little bit of what we'll see this week...

Moderator: We went over our rules. Each of you will have 30 seconds and we'll allow a 15-second rebuttal from a second candidate. Question number one is for you, Candidate 1, the American presence in Iraq has lasted longer than World War II, we're on our third surge in a little more than a year to increas troop levels again, attacks against Americans are up, American casualties are up, Iraqi casualties are up... if you were president right now, what would you do?

Candiadate 1: We need to stay the course. We haven't given this latest surge enough time. Six months should do it.

Moderator: But in each of the previous surges, they were also accompanied by a six-month time estimate, and in each the situation worsened. Isn't six months really just an arbitrary time period in order to give the public enough time to forget the previous misstep?

Candidate 1: Obviously you're not paying attention to the new history. That's the old history you're talking about. The new history is that we're doing better every day. Just ask General Petraeus.

Moderator: Speaking of General Petraeus, Candidate Two, he said this week, "The level of horrific attacks like the one that killed nine US soldiers at a patrol base in Diyala province April 23 is still too high." What is the level of horrific attacks that is acceptable?

Candidate 2: Off the top of my head, I would say a level that kills fewer than nine Americans at a time. Of course, I don't want to go out on a limb and put words in the general's mouth. It's really all the democrats fault for trying to give soldiers money the wrong way.

Moderator: Doesn't the Iraq Accountability Act actually give more money than what the republicans are asking for by additionally funding hospitalization for soldiers and veterans?

Candidate 2: That's just a slick trick to pretend they support the troops. We know how to support the troops - by not pampering them with things like health care or body armor. We're already catering their meals through private contractors. Isn't that enough? Next they'll be wanting armored vehicles and night vision goggles, too.

Moderator: The sticking point with the democratic funding bill is that the president doesn't want any deadline to leave Iraq. What incentive will Iraq have to take over control of their own country if they have no deadline?

Candidate 3: You can't just give them a date for our withdrawal or else they'll simply wait and stop the attacks until we leave. Is that what you want - peace in the country for several months while Iraq brings their own people together?

Moderator: Candidate 4, Iraq has put the American economy into the worst national debt of any country in the history of Planet Earth. What will...

Candidate 4: What's with all these questions about Iraq? Don't you want to ask me about flag burning or the proper ways to hate gays and minorities, you know, our special areas of expertise?

Candidate 1: You don't hate gays nearly as much as I do.

Candidate 4: Are you kidding? I've been hating gays since before you were born. I hate them more than you and Candidate 2 combined.

Candidate 2: Well, you may have a great record on hating gays, but I'm really big on hating Mexicans. What have you done to hate the Mexicans?

Moderator: Could we please have some order?

Candidate 1: My record is very solid in hating Mexicans. Blacks, too!

Candidate 3: You love the blacks compared to me. In fact, I not only hate the Mexicans and the blacks, but I led the fight against women.

Moderator: Please, everyone, this isn't a free for all...

Candidate 2: You know, there's nothing quite as much fun as denying rights to women.

Candidate 1: That's true.

Moderator: Please calm down everyone, I have another question...

Candidate 4: Except, of course, for denying science.

Candidate 3: That goes without saying. If you have to deny anything, it's science. Unless by "science" you're talking about using taxpayer money to pay full price to pharmaceutical companies for old people's drugs. Old people - that's another group we're pampering too much.

Moderator: All right, Candidate 4, I'll change topics. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said 72 times to Congress that he didn't remember anything having to do with directing the Department of Justice to act without justice for all, but rather to direct attacks against democrats and show favoritism to republicans and their elections. Isn't that odd that he would have such a blank mind even forgetting meeting with the president?

Candidate 4: Certainly not. I've had many forgettable meetings with the president myself.

Take me to my leader?

2007-04-22T15:41:00.000-05:00

Bubba had fallen asleep with his fishing pole still in his hand on that quiet Georgia summer night. Suddenyl a bright light accompanied by a nearly quiet "soosh" from above awakened him.

Frozen with fear, Bubba watched as a hatched opened and a little green man appeared. "Ooszw xra kame Oif. Lu tapp endorge, oaa?" the alien asked before turning a switch on his belt.

"Wait, now that should be better," the alien said after turning on his universal translater. "I am Oif. I'm a scout who has come from far away to explore your world and maybe see if I help you sort through some problems."

"I'm Bubba," he responded.

"Bubba, take me to your leader."

Bubba thought for a minute. "I'm not sure what you mean."

"Well, who's the head of this planet?"

"Lots of people control different parts of our world."

"Who controls the most?" Oif asked.

"That would be China," Bubba said. They have the most people and they control most of our money, but they're not as active around the world as this country, the United States, is."

"Then who leads the United States?" Oif asked.

"That would be President George W. Bush. He's the one we put in office."

"Then take me to this George W. Bush. I need to speak with someone who knows all the issues facing your planet," Oif said.

"Uhhhh, maybe Mr. Bush isn't your best choice. His Vice-President, Dick Cheney, probably knows a bit more about such things."

"Very well," the alien said, "then take me to Dick Cheney. I need to speak to someone who leads, has great knowledge, and has a good heart for the people of this world."

"Uhhhh, maybe Mr. Cheney isn't your best choice. He's not known for being the most kind-hearted person around."

"Who's in charge of policing this place?" Oif asked. "Perhaps that is the person who I need to seek out."

"That would be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales," Bubba said. "He's the nation's leading law enforcement officer. He would know good people from bad people."

"Good, then let's see this Alberto Gonzales person," the alien responded. "I need to speak to someone who leads, has great knowledge, has a good heart for the people of this world, and can treat all people without favoritism. I am here, after all, to help all people of your world."

"Uhhhh, maybe Mr. Gonzales isn't your best choice. He only favors certain people - the ones who support Bush and Cheney and Rove."

"Rove?" Oif asked. "Is Rove the human who leads, has great knowledge, and has a good heart for the people of this world, and can treat all people without favoritism?"

"Uhhhh, noooooo, I don't think Rove quite fits that description," Bubba said.

Then, like a flash, it came to the Georgia fisherman. "I think you should speak to Al Gore. He actually had more people vote for him than Mr. Bush."

"Does Al Gore have great knowledge?" Oif asked.

"Oh yes. He's one of our leading experts on the condition of this planet."

"Does Al Gore have a good heart for the people of this world?" asked the alien?

"I think he cares about all life on this planet."

"Does Al Gore treat all people without favoritism?" asked the little green man.

"I don't think it matters to him where people live as long as he can preserve human life."

"And he had more people supporting him than the others?" asked a now very confused alien.

"Yes," Bubba said, "but our top judges selected Mr. Bush instead."

"If you're so unintelligent as to do that to yourselves I don't think this is a place civilized enough to warrant my help," the alien said. He quickly stepped back into his ship and sped away like a dot into the night.

Bubba watched the spaceship disappear into the night sky and said to himself, "If he needed things to change right away, maybe I should have just told him to see Nancy Pelosi. She's good at that."

Bravery and Baseball

2007-04-15T19:29:00.000-05:00

It's strange how two of my greatest heroes in life come from the world of baseball. Today celebrates the life of one of those great men - Jackie Robinson.

Jackie Robinson was a Hall of Fame second baseman for the Dodgers, then in Brooklyn, who began his career 60 years ago today, April 15, 1947.

The story goes that when Dodgers owner Branch Rickey signed Jackie, he asked him what he would do if a racist white man threatened him with violence and called him every disgusting name he could think of.

Robinson asked Rickey if he was wondering whether or not the young player had the guts to fight back. Rickey said, "No, I'm wondering whether or not you have the guts NOT to fight back."

Robinson suffered quietly through untold abuse. When the team traveled to some southern cities, he couldn't stay at the team hotel or eat with the other players at the same restaurants.

Some southern racists on other teams refused to play against Jackie, and when forced to, tried to injure Robinson on purpose.

Robinson even had ignorant southern racists on his own team such as OF Dixie Walker who refused to acknowledge his black teammate.

Some people think Robinson was selected to be the first black baseball player because he was the greatest player in the Negro Leagues, but that's not true.

Robinson was very talented, but hadn't completely honed his skills. Rickey wanted a player who would have to earn his way up through the baseball minor league system like any other player.

After spending time with the Dodgers minor league team in Montreal, Robinson joined the big league club in Brooklyn. Robinson earned the 1947 Rookie of the Year award.

After baseball, Robinson lived his life as a speaker, a writer, and an activist; but always maintained the quiet dignity and pride he projected in his playing days.

I mentioned at the top that I have two great heroes in baseball. The other is Lou Gehrig, a man who maintained a similar dignity and pride when struggling in another battle - the battle for his still young life as a crippling disease ended it.

While Lou Gehrig showed us how to handle death, Jackie Robinson showed us how to live life.

Robinson made the Baseball Hall of Fame by his achievments on the baseball diamond, but he makes the Hall of Fame for humanity by his achievments everywhere else.

Hate Radio Has Reached Its Zenith

2007-04-12T20:50:00.000-05:00

As of today, Don Imus is gone from MSNBC and CBS Radio. Given the magnitude of the most recent event combined with his history of hate jokes, it is an unfortunate but likely justifiable end to his terrestrial broadcast career.

Keep in mind, he wasn't fired for saying the things he did. He was merely suspended for that. He was fired because his advertisers abandoned his program.

Like Howard Stern before him, Imus may very well have a future in uncensored satellite radio, but his situation lets us look at several points of view surrounding his dismissal.

THE “TOO POLITICALLY CORRECT” ARGUMENT

Imus is a comedian first and foremost. He jokes, the argument goes, not much differently than Chris Rock.

Do we hold Imus to a different standard than Rock because he’s not in front of a live audience like Rock? Do we hold Imus to a different standard because he’s not black like Rock?

No, we hold Imus to a different standard because his humor is designed with the intent of producing insult in a way that actually brings harm to a segment of humanity. Rock’s humor is designed to make people laugh – period.

Intent. Rock harbors no ill intent for the people he uses certain words to describe.

It’s not the words that are said, it is how they are used.

Bullets don’t kill when they’re held in one’s hand. They don’t kill unless they’re fired from a gun pointed at another living being.

THE “FIRST AMENDMENT” ARGUMENT

Some backers of Imus argue he has Freedom of Speech.

Indeed, they are correct. Imus had every right to say what he said – provided they were not said over the public airwaves.

Broadcasters are regulated by the FCC, and are not allowed to say certain words in any case. What Imus said is not included in those words banned from the public airwaves, but it doesn't mean they were acceptable.

Private citizens may not say certain words even simply in public because of their intent to bring harm to others. The classic example is that a person may not scream “Fire” in a crowded theater.

When people can likely be hurt, freedom of speech is suspended.

THE “WHAT ABOUT RAPPERS?” ARGUMENT

Rap music artists use insensitive words in their art, but like the “First Amendment” argument, the broadcast airwaves do not allow these rap songs to be played over public airwaves. For those that do get broadcast, that still doesn't make it right.

A growing number of people are protesting lyrics in rap songs that are harmful, and their message is getting across. The two ways they do so are verbally by speaking out against these lyrics, and economically by not buying works from these artists.

Imus was fired for similar reasons. Verbally, he was protested against, and economically his advertisers pulled their ads to prevent his show from being cost productive.

THE “EVERYBODY DOES IT” ARGUMENT

This is beyond any doubt the vilest argument of all.

The overwhelming theme of conservative talk radio and television is to promote hate speech based on white supremacy as long as it’s male, Christian, and heterosexual white supremacy. The argument is that such talk must be acceptable across the board because no one else is being punished for it.

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has referred to Senator Barak Obama and actress Halle Berry as “Halfrican-Americans.”

Conservative talk show host Michael Savage questioned whether the Voting Rights Acts intended to combat discrimination at the ballot box was trying to “put a chad in every crackhouse.”

Conservative talk show host Neal Boortz said that Representative Cynthia McKinney looked “like a ghetto slut.”

Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck referred to Hurricane Katrina victims as “scumbags”, and told Representative Keith Ellison that he wanted to say to him, “Prove you are not working for our enemies,” because Ellison is also Muslim.

It goes on every day in conservative talk radio. The idea is produce fear of some other group of people simply because they are in some way different.

Fear is so closely associated with hate as to produce a warlike, primitive response in simple minds. That is why "ism" and "phobia" are in the words "racism" and "homophobia".

But those other groups are not really so different from their conservative hatemongers. They are, after all, fellow Americans.

Progressive talk show hosts also espouse their own viewpoints, but don't appeal in the same way to fear and hatred. They don’t fear and hate men. They don’t fear and hate heterosexuals. They don’t fear and hate Christians. They don’t fear and hate white people.

Conservativism is based on exclusion ("You wouldn't want your sister to marry one of them" - 'them' meaning a different race or similar gender) while progressivism is based on inclusion to work for a common goal as a consensus unit. Guess which is easier to manipulate and exploit among weak minds.

Imus wasn’t a conservative. Some even called him liberal although his political guests spanned the spectrum of politics from democrats like John Kerry to republicans such as Rudy Giuliani. A particular favorite of Imus’ was the very conservative Independent, Joe Lieberman.

But Imus used a slightly different tactic than the Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reily, etc. While their hate talk is serious and specific in their attacks against the groups of people they hate, Imus used humor.

Still, the intention of Imus’ humor was no less harmful.

The real unknown is how much longer we will have to wait before broadcasted hate speech begins to dwindle.

With Imus’ dismissal, America may soon see the dwindling begin.

The solution to the NFL Overtime problem

2007-04-08T11:05:00.000-05:00

Almost no one likes the current sudden-death-overtime NFL rule for breaking ties after four quarters have been played.

The problem is that the winner of the coin toss in OT gets a HUGE advantage. If they score on their possession, the game ends without the other team having a chance to score on a similar possession (a variation of which is used in college football).

The problem with extending the game is that the longer the game is played, the more chances there are for injuries by players whose play gets sloppier with exhaustion as the game goes on.

The college football variation also creates a ridiculous amount of scoring that plays havoc with statistics - both real and fantasy. (Don't think gambling/fantasy football doesn't drive significant profits for the NFL and sports media - it does and they know it.)

So here's how to deal with the problem of luck governing overtime.

NEW RULE - The team that FORCED THE TIE (i.e. scored last) KICKS OFF IN OT. Pure strategy; no coin flips involved. It will also give incentive to go for the win over the tie by the team coming from behind in regulation.

Example #1 - A team trails 24-17 and scores a TD with 5 seconds left in the game. The odds are now better to go for two and the win in regulation than to go for one and kick off in OT.

Example #2 - A team trails 24-21 with three seconds to go on at the opponent's 3-yard line. The odds now favor going for the TD rather than the FG to tie.

Example #3 - A team has driven to the opponent's 15-yard line with under a minute to play trailing 24-21. No longer will you see three line plunges or kneel-downs to bring the clock to three seconds and kick the short FG to tie. The odds strongly favor a team actually trying to win the game instead of (yawn) killing the clock. If they score quickly, you'll have the added excitement of the other team desperately trying to score in the last seconds of the game.

Take Bush up on his offer

2007-04-08T10:59:00.000-05:00

Ever the pursuer of compromise, I have come up with a solution that will satisfy the conditions set forth by President Bush for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify before Congress, and still allow Congress to determine what input these two administration officials and other White House staff members had regarding questions surrounding the 2007 Department of Justice Attorney purge.

To review, President Bush’s conditions for the interviews of White House officials are as follows:
1) No subpoenas may be issued to testify before Congress.
2) No interviews may be conducted in public.
3) No recordings or transcripts may be kept of the interviews.
4) Interviewees are not be sworn in to tell the truth.

Not only should Congress accept these conditions, they should leap at the opportunity to follow the president’s request to the letter. They may never again get such a blind acceptance of pursuing these interviews in a manner consistent with the administration’s already accepted principles of justice.

How? It’s very simple.

Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and, especially, Alberto Gonzales should be interviewed at Guantanamo Bay under the direction of interviewers at that facility in conditions that have already been determined by this administration and, especially, Alberto Gonzales, to be proper under United States and international law.

As Attorney General, the nation’s chief law enforcement official, Alberto Gonzales has already written memos outlining the unique advantages of having such a facility and practices in place at Guantanamo Bay. Harriet Miers, the president’s personal legal advisor, has also given her blessing (isn’t that a wonderful word?) to these types of procedures.

Note that the president has given no restraints on the location of these interviews. Nor has he specified the amount of time over which the questioning can take place.

As for the presumed innocence of those being interviewed, well, that hardly matters.

Most of the interviewees at Guantanamo Bay have been released after being interviewed over a period of time because it was determined they, too, were not guilty of wrongdoing. That certainly didn’t stop officials at the facility from engaging in – shall we say – rather extensive interviews.

Having the interviews conducted at Guantanamo Bay also gives interviewers the opportunity to determine guilt without the necessity for trials, lawyers, and such.

The president has clearly shown a disdain for allowing his administration’s officials from participating in these types of legal workups. Surely the president can appreciate avoiding such messy and public displays of what some in opposition to the president might call “the rule of law.”

And suppose the interviewers at Guantanamo Bay determine guilt by one or more of the parties being interviewed. We can eliminate yet another step of traditional legal activities known as “sentencing hearings.”

No, it’s one-stop shopping for these participants.

As for appeals, well, that would involve lawyers, which we have already determined to be an unnecessary and distasteful component to such matters.

You may be wondering about Due Process, which is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Due Process is our method of guaranteeing certain procedures that must be followed to ensure fairness for the accused we presume to be innocent.

Of course, Alberto Gonzales, with the blessing (there’s that wonderful word again) of Harriet Miers, has already determined that the United States Constitution isn’t in effect in Guantanamo Bay.

In fact, Alberto Gonzales has previously determined that much of the United States Constitution isn’t in effect in the United States, either. Did you know that the United States Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus, which is the alleged right to know what an accused person has been charged with in criminal court? Gonzales’ opinions are so perceptive as to outweigh the forefathers of America as well as the history of Western Civilization dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

So you see, having these interviews in Guantanamo Bay is COMPLETELY within the bounds of United States law and the president's infallible political philosophy. We should all thank the president for setting guidelines that allow us the opportunity to properly interview these witnesses under conditions the interviewees have already graciously agreed to.