9/11: The Final Insult

Today, despite the shameful delaying tactics of members John McCain and Tom Coburn, the U.S. Senate passed a bill awarding extended medical benefits to first responders during the 9/11 attack. While alone this is cause for thankfulness (if not celebration), it also created the opportunity for Fox News to again trot out the most despicable man in America, Rudolph Giuliani.

The person once honored as Man of the Year by Time magazine is, of course, the poster boy for corrupt incompetence. But that's just a personal opinion. Instead, on this day of his rising from the ashes to again self-proclaim his heroism, let's dispassionately deal with established fact concerning his 'leadership':

• In February of 1993, while he was running for mayor, the twin towers were attacked for the first time, by a bomb-laden truck in one of the tower's underground parking lots. Presumably he noticed.
• One of the lessons learned that day was the importance of radio communication between first responders, and with their command centers. During that attack, the radios performed dismally, if at all.
• It took over seven years of Giuliani's term for new radios to be purchased for the fire department. When they were, it was done without competitive bidding. Giuliani's administration made the decision unilaterally.
• The radios were never properly field tested prior to purchase. When they were tested after distribution, they failed field tests repeatedly.
• On the day of the 9/11 attacks, during rescue operations, all police and fire department personnel were ordered evacuated from the building. All police (working on their own radio system) obeyed the radio call, without loss of life for any of those evacuees.
• However, 212 firefighters were killed when they remained inside the building which subsequently collapsed. Surviving firefighters on the scene reported that the radio commands were never heard--the radios failed.
• When subsequently called to testify, Giuliani reported under oath that the firefighters who died simply disobeyed orders. (Apparently, firefighters are uniformly 'braver' than police).
• Members of the fire department rallied to protest Giuliani's version of the facts. Giuliani had them arrested.
• Giuliani never entered the city's unified emergency command center on that day. That's because it was located on the 23rd floor in the WTC complex. Giuliani claimed afterwards it was put there because that's where his director of emergency operations wanted it. That is, until that director presented a memo showing he had clearly stated it should be put in Brooklyn, for exactly the reason that it would be far less prone to attack.
• One of the requirements for the command center was the installation of huge underground fuel tanks to run generators in case of emergency. It was those fuel tanks that exploded and burned violently during the attack, accounting for the immense heat and flame that killed many of the victims.
• Giuliani's hand-selected center was bullet proof and had its own private elevator, cigar humidor and monogrammed towels, making it ideal as a secret weekend location for assignations with his then-girlfriend.
• The reason for today's appropriations are the lifelong lung problems being suffered by those first responders. They worked 8 and 12 hour shifts trying to locate survivors and remains in the rubble. They did so without any city mandate requiring breathing respirators.
• Shortly after the attack, Giuliani had personally declared the site safe. It is interesting that much video shows him greeting and thanking clean-up workers on site. He is wearing a mask. Virtually none of the people actually doing the work are.

Despite all the evidence, we again have to endure the duplicity of Giuliani claiming solidarity with those first responders and their families.

How much better served they would have been had he exhibited any such concern in the eight years of his mayoralty before the attack.

Terrorists in Robes

Ten years to the week, the smothering hand of right wing judicial terrorism again has clawed the throat of democracy.

It was December of 2000 when five Supreme Court puppets of the Republican Party cast aside legal precedence and any pretense of non-partisanship to halt a recount of Presidential votes in Florida...for fear that a full recount might 'cast a cloud' on the presidency of fellow puppet George W. Bush. As such, Anton Scalia and his fellow scum ushered in an era of fiscal disaster, Constitutional travesties, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in order for Fearless Leader Bush to exorcise the demons of his desertion from the same armed forces he presumed to respect.

Today, we have experienced a lower-level travesty. But in its own way, it betrays the degree to which the feared 'judicial activism' so lamented by the right has in reality become their calling card...the central method by which they seek to reestablish the monarchy and class separation for which which our founding fathers risked their lives to deposit in the dust bin of history.

A Bush-appointed Federal judge in Virginia, Henry E. Hudson, has ruled that key provisions of the Obama Health Care Bill--the one that provides health insurance to many more Americans--AND reduces costs--are unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, Hudson is part owner of an online political action firm that has lobbied against the Obama health bill. And the U.S. Attorney who brought the case to Hudson's court has also purchased the services of the same firm, Campaign Solutions Inc.

Scalia, thug that he is, at least had the decency to attempt a rationalization for the actions crowning Bush the boy king. Of course, those legal pretenses are destined to become a laughingstock of American jurisprudence for centuries to come. The two clowns in Virginia didn't have the same backbone. They quickly asserted that their cowardly conduct would ultimately be reviewed by a higher court...thus attempting to remove themselves from responsibility.

But they've done their jobs. They've set legal wheels in motion that will allow Scalia and cohorts to again overturn the will of the American people.

It's only a matter of time until people wake up...and take the law into their own hands.

And the law will be better for it.

If

Passing through a decent high school literature class creates a high probability you'll run across the Rudyard Kipling poem, If. Most people never give it a second thought. Some may remember a stanza or two. (The full version is here.) But I'm thinking that Barack Obama has a copy pasted to the mirror so that he can consult it every morning while shaving.

It's really one of the few things that explains his baffling reticence to confront his dastardly political opponents. What follows are select lines from the poem which might appeal to the President...and some thoughts on the same:

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowances for their doubting too...

In other words, above all else, keep cool. Descending to their level is a sign of weakness--even if their words and deeds are weakening you more than you could ever do to yourself.

If you can wait and not be tired of waiting, or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating, and yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise...

Well, I'm sure there's a moral message here, maintaining civility and all that. But that last phrase is a killer: could it be that Mr. Obama believes that simply opening his mouth will, de facto, make him look too wise? I mean, how could others not pale in comparison? Mr. President, trust me, the Tea Partiers are robbing you of your apparent wisdom...while you maintain your modesty.

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, and stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools...

Yes, it's true--Kipling was prescient enough to foresee the creation of Fox News. You may have no choice but to suffer the knaves...but keep the faith in his inspiration--stoop, stoop, stoop and build! Before it's too late!

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew to serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you except the will which says to them: "Hold on!"

Hold on, Mr. President. Show that heart and nerve and sinew. You can prove beyond a doubt that you're better than they are--if you simply lace up the gloves and fight.

70%

Give them credit: the Tea Partiers have done the seemingly impossible. They've introduced the topic of economics, in the form of numbers-laden debt concerns, into the public debate. Working in contradiction to the standard GOP playbook of manipulating voters with divisive social issues (abortion, flag burning, gays anyone?), the TP'ers have led us down the path of speculating on what, exactly, would need to be done to balance the budget...and erase the deficit.

Now, the cynical may ask where those sentiments were when Bill Clinton actually created a surplus, and introduced the idea that you can't fund new programs until you find an offset in the federal budget to pay for them. I don't recall too many people at the time urging that impeachment proceedings be dismissed lest they take the national eye off the ball of financial restraint.

And I don't recall a peep from these same outraged Americans when George Bush spent eight years squandering what Clinton had saved, spending like a former cocaine-addled AWOL pilot now making amends by playing soldiers with real humans. How to pay for his overseas follies? Easy. Just take the cost off the books. Leave it for the next guy to figure out. See how simple that was?

Well, at any rate we're now having a financial conversation. You can't flip a cable channel without some numbnuts throwing out a string of numbers. And that can get confusing. Thus, the title of this post--the only number that really matters: 70%.

That's the portion of the U.S. economy that depends on a single source--consumer spending. That includes every loaf of bread and box of Kleenex...every new McMansion, Escalade and pedicure. Unless consumers continue to spend, our economy will remain a mere shadow of its former self.

Now, think about what works against consumer spending: consumers not having enough money; consumers having mortgages that are higher than the value of their homes; consumers unable to get a loan for a new car; consumers not having jobs. If there's one thing we learned from the last two bubbles, maybe it's that you really can't spend money you don't have without eventually needing to pay it back. (Unless, of course, you're a Wall Street banker, in which case you can pretty much do what you want).

There's no conservative I know of (excepting Ron Paul) who believes that laying off even more workers, shutting more factories, sending more jobs overseas, further reducing wages and shredding the social safety net is the necessary medicine to cure what ails the economy. Even if that were the right prescription, it would take decades to return us to health. In the interim, the collapsing economy would begin to feed on its own decay, reducing consumer spending to levels not seen since the forced reductions of World War II.

And the amazing part of this is the inability of most large corporations to look past their own balance sheets. Of course, it is in their nature to want more productivity, a higher stock price, and greater profits. And if taxpayers are willing to help underwrite that with their tax dollars...and more of their workers are thrown out on the street...well, that's just the price of progress. That's the 'free market' at work.

But when virtually all corporations act the same way, helping 'carve out' the American economy by subjecting the middle class to financial genocide, there is, at best, a long and painful road to recovery.

How do you achieve 70% consumer spending when consumers have nothing left to spend?

What's the Matter With Kids Today?

Of all the navel gazing done concerning the 2010 election returns, one thing stands out to me: only 11% of people aged 18-29 voted. That compares to 18% when Barack Obama was elected just two years ago.

Yes, midterms always draw fewer voters.

Except, not always.

This off-year election, the number of voters over the age of 65 actually increased, from 16% to 23%. And as CNN's exit polls prove, the older, richer and whiter a voter, the far more likely he is to vote Republican.

If the Democrats want to retain the White House in 2012, they better figure out a way to convince young people to vote--starting now.

How the Senate Explains America

As a reference point for America, or even American politics, the U.S. Senate seems to have a glaring defect: it's inherently non-representative. It is the counterbalance built into the Constitution by the founding fathers to assure that big states would not overwhelm little ones. After all, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Virginia was a population bully--12 times the size of Delaware. Without the Senate, the good folks of Delaware could be lost in the shuffle.

Today, the disparity is even worse. We have a Vice President from Delaware, which certainly would not have happened if big states were allowed to fully exercise their populous muscle. Delaware simply wouldn't matter. California today contains 68 times as many people as Wyoming. In fact, California is home to more folks than 21 other states combined.

Still, I think studying the Senate explains American politics. Largely because voters look at Senate candidates in a more sober, studied way than those for any other office. After all, they are making a six year commitment--longer than they devote to a college choice, a car loan, or most romantic relationships. Those six years give a sense of familiarity that is seldom associated with any Congressman. While Presidential races are characterized by a numbing overload of pomp and circumstance, from declaration all the way through inauguration day, those who would be Senator are seen through a lens more sharply focused on reality.

And it is because of this, I believe, that those Tea Partiers who saw themselves as Senators--Miller in Alaska, Angle in Nevada, Raese in West Virginia, Buck in Colorado, and O'Donnell in Delaware--went home without trophies this time around. In the end, they were not judged Senate-worthy.

In fact, statistically the Senate seems precisely aligned with the sentiments of America. This fall, among those voters who were willing to declare a party affiliation (leaving the independents aside), 52% said 'Democrat' compared to 48% for 'Republican'. It appears the new Senate will include 52 Senators caucusing with Democrats...compared to 48 with the Republicans. A perfect match.

But beneath the surface, there are two central currents running through the Senate that help explain America's political divide better than 24 straight hours of any political punditry.

True, in general Republicans are richer and Democrats less so; Democrats more progressive and Republicans more conservative. The GOP is whiter, while the Dems get more female votes. But working against the stereotypes are jarring exceptions: there are two very moderate female GOP Senators representing the state of Maine, each assailed by members of their own party as 'liberals' for their positions on social issues; on the Democratic side of the aisle, that party can take nothing for granted from Blue Dog members who would logically support the progressive policies designed to provide better times for their relatively poorer constituencies.

What explains this?

Isolation...and religion.

There are 13 states in America where population density is more than 200 people per square mile. They don't seem to have much in common: Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio and Hawaii are not close together. California houses four of the nation's 12 biggest cities. The densest state--New Jersey--doesn't even include one in the top 60.

But people in those states have one thing in common--contact with a lot of other people. They cross paths. They interact. They find out about each other. They have no choice. They have to share--roads and school rooms and open spaces. They are the answer to Rodney King's plea--yes, they all can just get along.

However, does this constant contact make them anxious and angry...or more forgiving? Do they end up wanting to help their fellow men...or punish them? Maybe a good test would be to study who they elect as Senators. Do they want 'help your fellow man' Democrats? Or 'every man for himself' conservatives?

Here's the breakdown for those 26 elected officials: 21 are Democrats...and only five Republicans. When people have to get along, they do. Isolation breeds desolation. Familiarity would seem to breed consideration for your fellow man. Perhaps close contact promote appreciation for the fundamental liberties our first patriots envisioned.

The other definitive fissure in American politics is religion. On one side of the chasm you have good, God-fearing Christians. On the other, there's your collection of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Buddhists, witches, cultists, devil-worshipers, and those who spend their Sunday mornings on golf courses that may or may not have been created by intelligent design.

How does the Senate scorecard play out here? Of the ten states where church attendance is lowest, fourteen senators are Democrats, and only six Republicans. Not worshipping there is not fatal to a political career.

But in the ten states where people most often attend Sunday services, a whopping 17 Senators carry the GOP banner, compared to three lowly Democrats. Here, it is definitely advisable to be seen consulting the Good Book.

Over the next two years, the legislative engine of Congress will most certainly seize. It's hard to see either side giving an inch (if the Democrats have learned even a modicum of reality). And into that void, the media will jump, yabbering about what they really want to talk about anyway--Sarah Palin.

As a resident of the state with the most open space...and already clearly comfortable with the concept of Messiah...Ms. Palin seems perfectly suited to play to her base.

But it's not yet clear that her act will play as well where Americans really have to interact and assess strangers every day...where more faith is placed in human beings than supreme beings.

Yes, she is blissfully isolated and vocally devout.

But could America ever see her as a Senator...much less a President?

Backward, March.

In a matter of days, for the first time in history, members of something called a Tea Party will be elected to Congress. They will have catapulted into office through an ether of anger, not perfectly unified as to what is wrong, but certainly convinced of who is to blame. Liberals. Feminists. Atheists. Incumbents. RINOs. The President. The government. Anyone who lives in San Francisco. Anyone whose expression of freedom does not align perfectly with their own.

The elixir of the Tea Party is the stereotype. So allow me to return the favor.

There are only two types of Tea Partiers. The manipulators. And the manipulated. That's it.

As in any hierarchy, there are far fewer at the top; in this case, those who are clever and craven enough to use the passions of the masses against themselves. The psychological buttons are so easy to push that it hardly seems like sport. Any lie is palatable as long as it's coated in the sweet sugar of rage.

The rank and file Tea Partiers are the manipulated. They are, in a word, stupid. They are wide-eyed; but not in the way a child is wide-eyed with wonder. Instead, they are wide-eyed with hate. It is empowering and all-consuming. It is both therapeutic and paralyzing. It prevents them from making the necessary rhetorical step from 'what is wrong' to 'what must be done'.

Consequently, anything that sounds good is good.

Cut $100 billion to help reduce the national debt? Fine--but from where? 'Well, we'll get to that when we take over'.

Balance the budget by allowing corporations and the rich to pay even less? OK, exactly what parts of defense, Social Security, Medicare and corporate welfare are you targeting? 'The details will be worked out'.

If you believe you can fix government by becoming part of government, precisely what qualities do you possess which will make you immune from the forces that you believe have corrupted all who have come before you? 'I refuse to answer any more questions from the lamestream media'.

Stupid is the new smart.

But of course, there is nothing new in all this. The Tea Party is simply part of history's inexorable march of two steps forward, one step back. When progress moves too quickly for some, its gears are filled with sand. Those threatened will recoil reflexively to what is comfortable, and wallow in the mistaken memory of what once seemed to be. The fact that there never were any 'good old days' will not deter the effort to relive them.

And the Tea Party is the final response to the upheaval of the 60's. Whether its members themselves lived through that wrenching period--or are their children, raised on the nightmarish recollections of the decade--this is the last best hope to 'reclaim America'.

The one that existed before women were paid as much as men...or allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.

The one where polluters operated without oversight.

The one where every American soldier must necessarily die for a just cause.

The one where people would never utter the blasphemy, 'God is dead'.

The one where a black man could never vote, much less be elected President.

How could any right-minded person forsake the good old days?

So, we must endure this step backwards. It must play itself out.

And it will.

Old Time Religion

It's the most incisive political writing since What's the Matter with Kansas?--the New Yorker analysis of the poisoned family tree which today has born fruit in the form of the Tea Party. The lunatic right wing charges now leveled against Barack Obama are the same ones formerly cast against Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and even Republican Dwight Eisenhower. These insanities call to mind Einstein's assertion that, "...only two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity." As a nation, we are older, but apparently no wiser.

Most compellingly, the article weaves the modern day rants of Glenn Beck back to his spiritual predecessor, a man named W. Cleon Skousen. And I use the term 'spiritual' advisedly; Skousen was an ardent Mormon, whose beliefs were long promoted by his church. Beck, a reformed alcoholic, is a recent convert to that faith.

So, given the long held Mormon depiction of black people as devils (since rescinded), it is no surprise that not-so-hidden racism helps fuel the Tea Party anger. But it is a mistake to make that anger and the racism synonymous; there is far more to the anti-government, anti-taxation and anti-American aspects of the movement.

And one, in particular, should not be overlooked.

By the time Bill Clinton formally announced for Democratic nomination in the early 90's, millions of Americans were already warning that his wife, Hillary, would ruin the nation. She was too liberal, too uppity and far too opinionated--for a woman. And certainly more than 90% of those people who felt certain Hillary would prove the death of democracy would not have recognized her had she walked into their living rooms. No matter that they didn't know her; they knew her to be evil. Expressly because she was a woman. If there is one thing a Mormon will not abide--to this day--it is the idea of a woman standing on equal intellectual footing with a man. Men lead...and women follow. It is God's law.

And that, in turn, helps explain the irrational and terroristic views espoused about the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. To GOP candidates this fall, running against Obama may be a home run. But running against Pelosi is a grand slam. She is the new femme fatale--the new woman who would ruin America.

Now, let me express my own opinion. America would be far better off if Pelosi had been elected in 2008 instead of Obama. With her years of experience, she understands the take-no-prisoners, suicidal obstructionism of the Republican Party. She would not have sauntered into the White House holding even the faintest belief in bipartisanship. She would have ruled with the iron hand of progressivism that is the only hope for the next generation...or two. This is the greatest fear of the right wing: a woman who understands their false bravado, and is willing to call the bully's bluff.

At the same time, it must be conceded that the anti-female credo of the Mormons and right wing extremists does allow for admission of women into the fold--as long as they are candidates who will align themselves abjectly to the dictates of their uber-male corporatist masters. The girls can be acceptable, even useful. It's OK if Fiorina and O'Donnell and Palin and Angle and Bachmann and McMahon carry the standard for the Party into office.

They don't matter. They are simply tools. They can prove their true destiny: serving their men.

Update: On Countdown this week, Nancy Pelosi delivered the following statistic: more new private sector jobs have been created during the first eight months of the Obama administration than during all eight years of the Bush presidency. This qualifies as an astounding fact...and further distances the communication effectiveness of Pelosi from the curious reticence of Mr. Reid and Mr. Obama.

The Tea Party Accident

Tea Party was patiently sitting at a stop light, intently listening, as always, to Rush on the radio.

Which is why Tea Party didn't notice the leased BMW, with the drunken, perma-texting GOP hurtling from behind. GOP slammed on the brakes at the last minute, but too late--plowed right into Tea Party. The fancy airbags saved GOP from any injury, but Tea Party was hurt. You could see it. Bystanders called Democrat in his aid unit, and he sped to the rescue.

There was no bleeding, but Tea Party complained bitterly that his neck really hurt. So Democrat applied the neck collar and gave Tea Party a couple pills to dull the pain. But Tea Party was pissed--at Democrat. What was wrong with him? What kind of a paramedic was he? Those pills were swallowed at least 30 seconds ago, and it still hurt! Pretty soon bystanders started asking Democrat the same questions. Loudly.

In the middle of the hubbub, GOP took the opportunity to back up the Beamer and sneak away from the scene. No one seemed to notice.

It's now a couple days later. Tea Party may need surgery. But he sure as hell isn't going to let Democrat do it. After all, if that guy knew anything about medicine in the first place, the pain would have stopped by now.

And GOP, off Scot-free, is back in the middle of the situation, promising the services he always provides. He'll be happy to represent Tea Party in the malpractice suit. He only requires 90% of the settlement.

And since Tea Party is going to be laid up for a while, he'll also give him a good deal chauffeuring him around town. And why not? GOP's driving record is clean. You could check with his friends.

Democrat sees everything that's wrong here.

But he's decided to say nothing.

The White Minority

As the extremely volatile Christopher Hitchens put it, the Glenn Beck gathering at the Lincoln Memorial was, "...a Waterworld of white self pity". Indeed.

With white Americans destined eventually to become less than a majority of Americans, bitterness, fear, resentment and hate are the expected defenses. But that raises the question of who, exactly, will supplant them.

Certainly, no single group will become a majority in the lifetime of anyone reading this. However, here is the list of the most prevalent non-Caucasian minorities, with their current representation of the U.S. populous:

-- Hispanic/Latino 15%
-- African American 12%
-- Asian 4%
--American Indian/Alaskan native 0.8%

The first response, of course, must be--what are the whites afraid of?

The second response, just as logically: isn't each of these 'minority' groups better informed and in possession of more common sense than the predominant white population?

Tea Partiers, put down your defenses: you will be undone only by your own idiocy.

D-Day Approaching

As summer winds down and the nation's political pundits begin to return to the keyboards and the Kleig lights, they will surely describe this fall as 'momentous'. And they will be right--but predictably, for the wrong reasons.

What we will be treated to is endless speculation about whether the Democrats can retain control of Congress, how much President Obama is to blame, and--of course--how this impacts the 2012 elections. What they will largely miss is the much more compelling issue of what happens to the expiring Bush tax cuts.

As a nation, we spend more than we make. We know this. What we've been told to believe for the last decade is that this really doesn't matter--the same way that saying seven martinis really won't cause a hangover. It's nice to consider...but inevitably, the morning comes. So Congress, as a whole, will have three options: a) let the tax cuts expire, so that some semblance of sanity returns, allowing us to start paying the bill for all those martinis; b) order another round; or c) hope no one is paying attention and change the subject--'hey, what do you think about Palin in '12?'

It's nice that some Americans really do care about this stuff, even if they have entirely contradictory ideas on how to solve the problem. On one hand, "lower taxes mean more business growth--that's your solution. Plus, the government wastes everything it collects anyway". Or, "the role of government is to help people--even if all the lobbyists want to take my tax money and give it to their fat cat clients".

Well, I'm not going to spend any time in this post arguing one point over another. Let me just offer two issues to consider:
1) Doing nothing is a terrible option. We can stand on the bridge of the Titanic looking at the iceberg and pretend it isn't there...but the iceberg isn't going to move. Course correction is mandatory.
2) When the arguments erupt about what direction to turn, we can't afford to invent our own facts. The government spends too much money? OK, but before one starts decrying 'waste'...and 'welfare queens'...and 'foreign aid'...and 'food stamps for the lazy'...and all the other shameless shibboleths...consider this. Social Security...Medicare/Medicaid...and defense spending each eat up about 20% of the federal budget. Throw in what we spend in interest to pay back the people overseas who have kindly funded all of our Cadillac Escalades, and you have two-thirds of everything your federal government spends. If you want to fix the problem, you have to start here. Nothing else will make a dent.

So, do we return to the insanity of the Clinton years...where they imposed the crazy idea that government should only spend what it takes in? Or do we continue the Bush cocktail party...believing that tomorrow morning will never come?

Or, 'hey--what about Palin in '12?'

The Cold Truth

Amid the oil spill, the tea baggers and the end of the school year, it's not much fun worrying about 'the big picture'.

But if your interest partially includes the future facing your kids and grandkids, this is something to consider.

Keith Olbermann, You Cowardly Tool

On Countdown, Keith Olbermann gets an hour a night to shine a light on what is wrong with the world. He normally does an excellent job. It is the most-watched show on MSNBC.

The biggest story in the world today, June 1, 2010, is the illegal attack on a Turkish humanitarian ship by Israeli commandos...in international waters. So big that it was the lead story in the New York Times, and every other reputable newspaper on the planet.

But for some reason, it didn't seem that important to NBC...or its cable news outlet. The Today Show gave it a perfunctory two minutes and 35 seconds, buried within its first half hour.

Hardball with Chris Matthews went a full 4:49, which may have been commendable, had Matthews not found it necessary to close the segment saying, 'this is an unfair shot at Israel'.

The wonderful Rachel Maddow devoted a very quick, very closely worded 2:27...which sounded as if every syllable had been reluctantly vetted by a phalanx of NBC lawyers.

Maybe someone at NBC doesn't like criticism of Israel. Yes, Jeff Zucker, I'm talkin' to you.

But today's winner of Worst News Person in the World is you, Olbermann. Not a word. Not one god damned word. Which means you are either a) just as big an idiot as Sarah Palin (as you often correctly point out); or b) allowing yourself to be censored in a way so transparent that you should move on to a job where your cowardice is not nearly so damaging.

Shame on you.

Israel, the Dog

There's an old parable about a two-way relationship. One side does nothing, refuses to say a word, makes a pest of himself, whines when he doesn't get his way, escalating, if necessary, to threatening howls. The other provides food, shelter, medical care, conversation, and willingly follows the first around...personally cleaning up after the first has taken a crap.

The relationship, of course, is between man and dog...and raises the very perplexing question of who is really the 'owner' of this relationship.

So it is with America and Israel. The indefensible (although fully spun) attack by a thousand Israeli troops on a couple of humanitarian relief ships headed to the Gaza strip on our Memorial Day again demonstrates who is the snarling pit bull and who the cowardly owner in this upside down relationship. Humanitarians killed? What does it matter? Only Israel matters.

While the outrage pouring from all of the civilized world (outside the U.S. borders) is fully merited, it's more illustrative to look at this incident from the perspective of Israel's chief U.S. propagandist, Ambassador Michael Oren.

Here were his assertions to PBS:
-- The commandos were absolutely justified in attacking in international waters because the humanitarians were 'a hostile entity'.
-- The Israeli soldiers did not fire first--they had 'no choice' but to defend themselves. Why bullets were necessary to quell an opponent armed with metal pipes and slingshots was not explained.
-- The purpose of the flotilla was, "...to make a political statement and provoke Israel".
-- The cement contained on the ships were, "...construction materials that Hamas would use to build bunkers, not hospitals".

He was then asked whether Israel would conduct a full and fair investigation. But since he already is certain what happened, and can even read the minds of the humanitarians, why bother? Seems like the facts were already settled by the Israeli judge-and-jury before the blood was even dry on the ship decks.

At this point, we await the meek response of the dog's owner, explaining why the cur should not be put down. But for Oren, there really isn't any need to wait; he will happily bark for the Americans:

"I believe there will be allies defending our right to defend ourselves. The Obama administration upholds our right to defend ourselves. They have defended our right to have that blockade in the seas. We're not standing alone".

Indeed. As has been pointed out elsewhere, neither Obama nor the key members of Congress are any more willing to call out Israel than they are Wall Street or the NRA. Above all, campaign contributions must not be endangered. Money rules America--not courage or brains.

In 1963, a singer named Rufus Thomas had a hit with 'Walkin' the Dog'. If you imagine a proud and purebred Israeli singing the refrain while pulling along an enfeebled Uncle Sam at the other end of the leash, the words make more sense than ever:

Walkin' the dog...
Just a walkin' the dog...
If you don't know how to do it, I'll show you how to walk the dog.

Stock Market Shocks

Today, at one point, the Dow Jones dropped almost a thousand points. There are a lot of varying opinions as to why. The reason there are so many opinions is that no one knows. The poseurs who suggest why markets do or do not do certain things have all the insight of someone trying to explain why a coin flip wound up either heads or tails. They don't know.

But, as usual, Robert Reich has a perceptive take:

Giant high-speed computers generate millions of trades based on instructions embedded in computer programs designed to move so fast they beat everyone else. So when there’s a glitch in one of them, it can immediately spread to all the other programs designed to move just as fast. Some say it was an erroneous trade entered by someone at a big Wall Street bank who mistyped an order to sell a large block of stock — and the big drop in that stock’s price (Procter & Gamble?) triggered “sell” orders across the market.

Regardless of why it happened, it’s further evidence that the nation’s and the world’s capital markets have become an out-of-control casino in which fortunes can be made or lost in an instant — which would be fine except for the fact that most of us have put our life savings there. Pension funds, mutual funds, school endowments — the value of all of this depends on a mechanism that can lose a trillion dollars in minutes without anyone having a clear idea why. So much of the market now depends on computer programs and mathematical models that no one fully understands, so much trading is done by people whose momentary carelessness could sink the economy, so much of global wealth now depends on who can move their money quickest at the slightest provocation — that we are toying with financial disaster every day.

Charter Schools

Americans are hard wired to wait for the silver bullet. The magical thing that will save us from ruin.

The first enduring settlement of white people on American shores would have died of starvation in Jamestown were it not for their silver bullet--the tobacco plants that gave them the ability to trade.

Polio seemed unstoppable until Dr. Salk discovered his vaccine.

The needless bloodshed at the end of World War II seemed destined to last forever, until the arrival of the biggest silver bullet ever--the atomic bomb.

So it is little wonder that we, as a nation, are willing to sit back...endure the inequities and the pollution...the deficit and the scourge that is NASCAR. Certainly, when we really need it, someone will come up with the next silver bullet.

In education, no one is happy with the state of our schools. Somehow, the more SUVs and smartphones we give them, the further behind our dear children fall. The endemic 'blame government' psychosis predictably turns its sights on the public schools, where diabolical administrators and terrorist union teachers undermine all that is good in our young people. No reasonable parent would send his darling to a public school if a private option were affordable.

And from that premise we have seen birth of the all-saving charter school. It is free from unneeded government intervention, it has thrown off the shackles of union memberships and annoying laws. The charter schools are free to be who they can be...and now, we're beginning to understand who that is.

Granted, for years different studies have produced different findings. When the survey is underwritten by one side or the other, the results are almost always predictable.

But the most recent and most objective field work, conducted by Stanford University in conjunction with charter school associations, gives the private alternatives a failing grade. Only 17 percent of charter schools have students performing better than their public school counterparts...and 37% are significantly worse.

These grades are posted despite the fact that the charter schools are far less likely to support the national average of special education and ESL programs...and many refuse to reveal how their 'lotteries' for choosing students are conducted. The suspicion, of course, is that these institutions will turn away those who socially or academically seem to threaten their teaching environments and results--an advantage which no public school system enjoys.

It may well be that parents and educators have to wait for another form of magic bullet.

This one seems to be badly missing the mark.

Nashville

When the towers fell on 9/11, the Rev. Jerry Falwell said it was God's way of condemning evil lifestyles and liberal leanings.

After Katrina stuck New Orleans, there was no shortage of wingnuts again claiming they knew it was God's will.

This week Nashville was submerged under a horrendous flood, which even struck the palatial Opryland Hotel. Just weeks earlier that hotel had hosted the national meeting of a high profile political fringe group--the Tea Baggers.

I'm just sayin'...

The Greatest Movie I've Ever Seen...

...is Michael Moore's latest, Capitalism: A Love Story.




If you're a liberal, perplexed about whether Obama's doing enough, or what he should do next--see this movie.

If you're a Tea Bagger, blinded with rage, but not quite sure where the rage is coming from--see this movie.

If you're somewhere in between, disgusted with the politics of debasement--see this movie.



People may argue whether Tarantino or Scorcese or Cameron is our best movie director. Moore belongs in that conversation. The only difference is that where the others work in the world of make-believe, he deals with reality.

If you have kids or grandkids old enough to drive, urge them to see this movie.

it's that good.

Defeating Reagan

Robert Reich (as usual) has a simple yet incisive viewpoint on the historic significance of the health care legislation.

One key paragraph:

The significance of Obama’s health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama’s health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that’s a very big deal.

It's worth a read.

Two Cheers for the Health Care Bill

America has now (provisionally) passed a bill providing health care for more than 90% of America. The Democrats say it's historic. That's true. Some Republicans are saying it's 'the end of our country'. Probably not.

But is it a good thing? Yes...if you believe that two out of three is good enough:

1) The Upside. More people will be covered. Insurance companies will be constrained in some meaningful ways (say goodbye to 'preexisting conditions'). Young people looking for non-existent jobs can stay on their parents health care plans until age 26. The caps on annual and lifetime benefits ostensibly will disappear. So, there is good news.

2) The Politics. Much is being made of President Obama 'spending all his political capital' to get this bill passed. This is a line of argument being promoted by the Republicans, so like everything else they've said on this issue, they're dead wrong. Obama showed he can, in the end, get things done. Something truly historic. In the midst of one of the most shamelessly vile, virulent and vindictive oppositions in America's legislative history. The Republicans, aided by a compliant, lap dog media, allowed themselves to lie and slander at will. And guess what?--it didn't work. Now where do they turn? Does it make sense for them to become even more lunatic? Could be. But they will drive themselves further from centrist voters.

3) The Downside. Mr. Obama's mistake from the start was to believe that he could bring all corporate and political entities to the table...and that they would eventually fall before his logic and his charm. That was never going to happen. He got played. He assumed when they said 'bipartisanship' they meant it. That ruse now has been put to bed. But in the process, some extremely friendly concessions were made to hospitals and drug makers (if not so much to the insurance companies). The road to meaningful health care reform...in terms of both service and cost control...has only begun. But more importantly, he now must now accept that his opponents will never stop opposing.

This downside can end if the President decides to call their bluff, and isolate them. For example, think Wall Street regulation. What if the administration proposed a bill that hard-capped the salary and bonuses of any bank executive whose company accepted money during the bailout? Of course, the free market ideologues would scream. But the Tea Partiers might shut up. On this point, the far left and the far right actually agree. Proving that the Republican party serves solely as pool boys for big business would be both honest and effective. Yes, it would be divisive. But at this point, what difference does it make?

Oh yeah, and one more thing.

Nancy Pelosi is now the world's foremost 70-year-old rock star.

Texas

Last year a couple old friends and I were sitting at a hotel bar in Dallas, being served by the sweetest ol' 60-something Texas lady you ever met. Y'all know what I'm sayin' here, darlin'? Seriously, she was the essence of down-home hospitality.

Then I said to her, "hey, I hear this governor of yours is talking about seceding from America. What about that?" I smiled as I said this, because, on virtually any level you can think of, this is preposterous.

Well, she stayed personable, but showed a new seriousness when she answered: "Well, of course! Why wouldn't we want to? I don't know anyone who doesn't think that's a great idea."

That got me to wondering about how a seemingly ordinary person could be so delusional, and I just couldn't help but conclude this was the final proof for something I've long suspected. America would be far better off if the Mexicans has just kept winning after the Alamo...or taken the rematch during the Mexican-American War. Texas is just plain wrong for America.

Now, don't get me wrong. I know good people who were born in Texas. I'm just happy they got out alive. But so much of what's wrong with this country can be traced to the ignorant bellicosity of that one altered state.

There's no need to go into a long list of specifics here. Just let me say that without Lyndon Johnson, an intelligent Texan who didn't have the balls to say no to Vietnam...and George W. Bush, a man without balls who invaded Iraq to make people believe otherwise, there would be a lot more safe and sound U.S. families today.

The reason I bring this up is the vote this week by the Texas Board of Education to alter the social studies content of schoolbooks sold in the state in order to promote the right wing view of the world. Planned additions to the history books include, “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.” Among many deletions will be any credit given to Thomas Jefferson for writings which led to revolutions in both the U.S. and Europe. Why him? Because he had the audacity to utter the dastardly words, "separation of church and state".

Although flooding the commission with more than 100 different amendments to the state curriculum since the start of the year, one thing that will not be included are mentions of more Hispanic figures to serve as role models to the burgeoning number of Hispanics in the state school systems. A Latino leader called this an attempt to "pretend this is a white America". Maybe if Santa Anna had just refused to kill Davy Crockett 150 years ago, the board would have been more charitable.

Right now it's hard to look at our country and not see an excess of stupidity. I realize every generation of Americans believes the same thing, but really--even in the anti-Communist McCarthy panic of the 50's, things could not have been worse than this. (Oh, and by the way, the Texas Board also wants to change the textbooks to show that McCarthy was actually right about all that Communist subversion).

So, although it seems unlikely that I'll ever get to cast a vote on whether the great state of Texas should secede from the union, I just want to be on the record casting a hearty 'yes'. I actually agree with that nice bartender lady. It could only make us all better.

Ya'll know what I'm sayin' here, darlin'?

Dichotomies

While there's some disagreement as to exact numbers, current surveys show that Americans still receive more of their news from television than any other source. The Internet is certainly making inroads, but so is cable, so TV's overall leadership remains firm.

What also hasn't changed is the lament about how shallow 'news' coverage really is on TV...particularly when it comes to substantive discussion of politics and issues. Part of this is TV's fault. The amount of pure crap masquerading as news seems to rise every year. But part of it is endemic to the medium. A typical feature story on the front page of the New York Times couldn't be entirely read out loud by a TV anchor inside an entire half hour broadcast...even if they removed all of the commercials and the sports and weather blather.

So when TV news executives are persuaded to devote precious content to things that really matter, they reactively turn to dichotomies...the simple either/ors that comprise the dumbed-down shorthand of issues coverage. They're familiar to everyone:

Liberal / Conservative
Winner / Loser
Rich / Poor

Sometimes there are developments that require the creation of new dichotomies, to help 'explain' (and therefore trivialize) important issues. For example, the emergence of news as diverse as the 9/11 attacks, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement quickly attain their own dichotomies:

Security / Terrorism
Common Sense / Intellectual
Big Government / Lower Taxes

The fact that each of these examples contains loaded words that set up false comparisons is testament to the power of the right wing to manipulate the broadcast airwaves...but that's a topic for another time.

What's baffling is how, given the knee-jerk reaction to establish the either/ors, broadcast ignores the one that explains the most about America--not just now, but always:

Government / Business

With all of the empty words dedicated every year to the idea that America succeeds because of the natural inclination to moderate between polar opposites, virtually nothing is said about the need to have these two preeminent social forces--free market and regulation, in other words--balance each other. This is the dichotomy that matters most...and is considered least.

However, once in a long while a smart person (in this case, Robert Reich) will clearly make the case:

Anyone with an ounce of sanity understands government is the only effective countervailing force against the forces that got us into this mess: Against Goldman Sachs and the rest of the big banks that plunged the economy into crisis, got our bailout money, and are now back at their old games, dispensing huge bonuses to themselves. Against WellPoint and the rest of the giant health insurers who are at this moment robbing us of the care we need by raising their rates by double digits. Against giant corporations that are showing big profits by continuing to lay off millions of Americans and cutting the wages of millions of more, by shifting jobs abroad and substituting software. Against big oil and big utilities that are raising prices and rates, and continue to ravage the atmosphere.

If there was ever a time to connect the dots and make the case for government as the singular means of protecting the public from these forces it is now. Yet the White House and the congressional Dem’s ongoing refusal to blame big business and Wall Street has created the biggest irony in modern political history. A growing portion of the public, fed by the right, blames our problems on “big government.”

Ronald Reagan, the most overrated of all U.S. Presidents, achieved sainthood with the far right when he assumed our highest office with the assertion that, "...government is not the solution...government is the problem". That was the equivalent of announcing, "gentlemen...start your engines" at the Indy 500. Reagan firmly seated big business behind the wheel, and we all witnessed the inevitable multi-car pileup that extended through all eight years of the younger Bush's illegitimate reign.

Broadcast news is not comfortable dealing with this ultimate dichotomy...the thought that there actually is a role for government to counterbalance the natural predatory nature of corporatism. On one hand, the people avoiding this conversation are themselves employees of huge corporations, so their self-interest is not surprising.

But moreover, dealing with this essential counterbalance would inevitably lead them to the ultimate dichotomy...the one they can never allow themselves to tackle:

Right / Wrong

Disappointed in Barack?

Well, sure, so am I. To a degree. But really, I'm not surprised.

Anyone with half a heart and a quarter of a brain supported the President during the election campaign. Even if we weren't necessarily comfortable disarming a weak opponent like McCain, there was a visceral sense of urgency born of the nascent national nightmare that is Sarah Palin.

Some of those in the disappointed camp wanted more done by now. But that was unrealistic. After all, simply rectifying the horror of the idiot Bush years would take nearly as many more. But it's the way the battle has been fought, rather than the wars won, that drain ardor from the Obama revolution. Why won't he toughen up? Why won't he do more? Or at least say more?

Well, two thoughts on this.

First, Rutgers historian David Greenberg reminds us that even the great Presidents aren't so great in their first year. The ticket to election...and the inevitable result...is consistent:

Candidates have no better path to victory than by inspiring us with dreams of a new political era, and presidents have no choice but to attempt 'too much'. In doing so, however, they can only disappoint us.

Indeed, if you look at the early months of Kennedy and FDR and Lincoln and Clinton--there is failure and misfortune for every one. Nothing is easy...and this is a job with a learning curve like no other. So, is time all that's needed? Will we eventually see the 'real Barack'...and at least partial fulfillment of hope?

Unfortunately, I believe not. Not unless a fundamental truism is acknowledged.

Mr. Obama makes no secret of his fondness for the 16th President; he was sworn into office on Lincoln's own Bible. And in tone, his presidency thus far virtually mimics the bipartisan words that Lincoln himself spoke on inauguration day:

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right...let us strive...to bind up the nation's wounds—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

What is frequently lost in recounting is the fact that Lincoln spoke these words not during his first inauguration--facing Civil War and the potential destruction of America--but during his second, when nearly all the blood had been shed. As he stood on the steps of the Capitol in March of 1865, less than four months had passed since Sherman left Atlanta in smoldering ruins. A little peace seemed advisable.

What Mr. Obama seems to have missed is the necessity for victory first--no matter how bloody it may be. He is faced with an enemy who has no battle strategy, but a single tactic--complete and utter obstruction. An enemy which believes that despite losing an election, they have not lost the right to rule. Lies are their weapons. They are immune from hypocrisy: they shamelessly and uniformly oppose even what they themselves previously proposed--so long as the President has now come to agree with them. No attempt at negotiation has succeeded. Whatever Obama gives is not enough. They will always ask for more. And it will never be sufficient.

This is a cancer in the body politic, but Mr. Obama seems to refute the need for medicine, radiation or chemotherapy. He hopes to reason with cancer. But this disease is not open to negotiation. It needs to be defeated. Only then will rational dialogue return from people of good will--no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.

So, perhaps it is unfair to expect too much yet. But at the same time, it is not too soon to begin wondering if one disappointing year will turn into four. Peace talks only work with one side squarely facing defeat. And it is yet to be decided which side that is. So buck up, Mr. President. Find your Atlanta.

It's what Abe Lincoln did.

And the Gold Goes to...Darwin?

This morning a great part of the American Olympic audience went apoplectic with the news that gold medal hopeful Lindsey Vonn had injured her shin, and might not be able to compete in her specialty, the giant slalom. For those unfamiliar, this is an event that has humans careening down the side of a mountain at speeds greater than what is allowed on the nation's interstate highways, even though in that environment, competitors are equipped with seat belts, air bags and several tons of reinforced steel.

A somber Vonn looked on as an even more-somber Matt Lauer talked about her string of 'adversities'. Like, how unfair that she got hurt hurtling down a hill at more than 70 MPH.

OK, let's put this in perspective. When you suffer an injury doing this, it's not an 'adversity'...it's an 'inevitability'. If you try to walk barefoot across an acre of razor blades, when you get cut, it's not really an adversity.

And to make it even more preposterous, the Olympics have sanctioned a new version of this. Instead of one person falling down the mountain, now four will do so at the same time. And they've added jumps and moguls and more turns. That will allow more of them to suffer serious injury, and thus satisfy the blood thirst of those 'younger viewers' who find the regular events 'boring'.

So, bring it on. Let's watch more people maimed...paralyzed...or even killed. It's the perfect melding of our culture. The world's preeminent athletic competition meets the Darwin Awards. I'll be watching...but not really that closely.

I'll wait two years for the summer games...when cage fighting replaces the far-too-mellow boxing.

Sarah and Hizzoner

In the summer of 1971, inside the city of Chicago, you would think that nothing much had changed. Fire hydrants were detonated at neighborhood intersections to cool the sweltering masses. Ice cream vendors thrived. Thousands of Sunday afternoon barbecues were conducted by masters of the charcoal arts, tongs in one hand and a can of Old Style in the other, while sizzling before them danced bratwurst, Italian and Polish sausages--the Holy Trinity of processed meat byproducts. As friends and family exchanged news, invariably the conversation would include something like this: "my cousin Johnny's idiot kid got on wit' Sanitation". In the North Shore suburbs, that might be translated as, "my nephew has a new job as a garbage man". Except that no one on the North Shore would ever admit such a thing. But inside Chicago, despite the stained image of the '68 Democratic Convention and the race riots of that same summer, a city job was still a city job. It was not only the promise of a steady paycheck, but also one that wouldn't require much in the way of sustained labor.

It was also confirmation that Chicago, the town built on the patronage plums doled out by Richard J. Daley--'Hizzoner'--still worked. The system reached from the lowliest lawn mowers in city parks all the way through the ranks of Daley's city council. While 'democratic' in party name, the council was as closed a court as any medieval king's. Among the 50 elected aldermen, a black face or two could be found, but because Daley's machine controlled the nominating process, their loyalty was assured. The lone Republican member was a curiosity, derided when not dismissed entirely. The only discordant notes came from a handful of progressive Democrats from pockets of wealth on the near north side and Hyde Park (where Barack Obama lived before moving to the White House). But their attempts to argue democracy in a body purportedly constructed to honor concepts like 'one man-one vote' and 'free speech' were doomed. When he had heard enough, Daley, seated behind his commanding desk like a wary wizard, would simply tap his finger to the side of his nose, and magically the dissenter's microphone would lose the power of electronic amplification.

But outside the council chambers, Daley was losing his magic touch. Aligned with the likes of Rev. Jesse Jackson, the few council liberals dared to challenge the entire state's slate of party delegates to the following year's national Democratic Convention in Miami. And they would win. But not without a fierce fight from Daley. His chosen argument was a populist appeal symbolized by the then recently coined phrase, 'limousine liberal'. In his appeal, those party rivals, voicing support for the 'common man', could have no concept of that man's world. The bungalow belt of carpenters and machinists that girded Daley's working class political base frequently toiled beneath the stench of the Stockyards. In Daley's mind, those sniffing only the fresh breezes of the posh lakefront precincts could neither see--nor smell--real life. They were college-educated, cafe-fed, and couldn't figure out which end of a hammer to hold. They were elitists. And thus, they were the enemy.

This comes to mind as Sarah Palin inevitably assumes the role of Mad Hatteress for the current wave of disaffected Tea Partiers. In the upside-down world of baseless beliefs and failed lives, stupidity is smart and quitters can still win. Even if you can't voice your truth, or even explain it to yourself, you can still feel that it's right. And that's all that matters. Because aligned against you are those persistent limousine liberals, with all their easy money and their paper degrees. They don't know your world. They are elitists. And thus, they are the enemy.

But a funny thing will happen to the Republicans on the way to electoral triumph. Because (as the perceptive ones already realize), the Tea Partiers stand ready to slay their own elitists along the way. Sarah Palin is in attack mode. She is the same potent political witch's brew of delusion, ambition, religion, ego and vengeance that periodically conflates heroism with fascism. There is no 'I' in team. But there is in Palin. She is mad as hell--and so are her minions. They're not going to take it any more. They are mounting the steps of hatred in lockstep, one at a time--frustration...alignment...mockery...anger...obedience...violence. Their eyes are trained on Obama. But their boots will mindlessly trample would-be allies on the climb to the top.

On those hot August nights of 1968, when Mayor Daley's stately Michigan Avenue and pristine Grant Park were invaded by the 'dirty hippies'...whose straggly hair and rag-tag clothes only disguised the next generation of clueless elite...there was no doubt sincere conviction in the hearts and minds of the the helmeted and shielded police as they raised their night sticks. After all, they were not attacking, only defending. Defending the truth; a city that worked; a country that worked. A place where 'real people' understood what the elites never could. In the heat of the moment, cliches like 'offense is the best defense' and 'love it or leave it' and 'America first' could all be melded into a hazy, fearful aggression. The crack of wooden weapon on human skull was not violence--it was justice.

It was the death knell for Mayor Daley's career.

But it was the spiritual birth for Sarah Palin's.

Who's the Bossie? (SCOTUS Treason, Part 3)

One of the enduring stereotypes of the 60's is the anti-war, free love, dope-smoking, long-haired hippie protester. Having been on college campuses at the time, I can attest first hand that such people actually did exist. (And they seemed to be having more fun than everyone else).


Not nearly as celebrated is the growth during those same years of a much quieter but eventually far more subversive organization called the College Republicans. Although founded in the late 19th century, the organization nearly went under during the 50's and 60's as Democrats generally controlled both houses of Congress and the hearts and minds of most college students.

But not all.

In 1967, using a grass roots, get-out-the-vote campaign that would do MoveOn.org proud, a chapter of the College Republicans effectively won a Kentucky gubernatorial election for a candidate whose political calling cards were anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and a vow to overturn an order that gave minorities equal access to previously whites-only public facilities. Suddenly, College Republicans became an 'in crowd'. Competition for leadership positions became so fierce that in 1973, the disputed election for the group's national presidency would only be decided when a prominent national Republican--George H.W. Bush--unilaterally declared the winner. That victor was a young dirty trickster who had already been investigated by the Watergate special prosecutor: Karl Rove. In fact, the legacy of the group extends non-stop to the present day, with direct descendants including the late Lee Atwater and the still fully fulminating Grover Norquist...as well as second-level connections to right-wing notables as diverse as direct-mail maven Richard Viguerie, Phyllis Schlafly and Left Behind author Tim LaHaye.

But the College Republican of the hour...and perhaps eventually the most important of them all...is a lunatic named David Bossie. He left that group to help grow a new organization called Citizens United, whose work has included the infamous Willie Horton ad, revelations of the 'liberal' secrets hidden by noted radical John McCain, and foremost--forever and a day--the dogged, demented, perpetually discredited attacks on the family Clinton. It was Bossie's documentary called, Hillary: The Movie that was the center of the treacherous Supreme Court decision granting corporations dominance over the national election dialogue.

In 2005, Citizens United went to court to use the McCain-Feingold provision of federal election law to prevent TV ads for the upcoming movie, Fahrenheit 9-11, a product of director Roger Moore. (The law limits how special interest cash can be spent 30 days before a primary election, and 60 days before a general). Bossie lost that case. Which may have helped spur the lawsuit ruled on this week by the Supreme Court, in which Bossie demonstrated a jaw-dropping (choose your own descriptor here) irony or hypocrisy, claiming the same legal strictures he attempted to invoke in 2005 now should not apply to his own film. Truly, the mind boggles.

When I say Bossie's two decade obsession with the Clintons is psychotic in nature, I'm not alone. He invented the Whitewater 'scandal' in his own mind...and then successfully persuaded the New York Times that it was true. After Enron fell, he claimed that both political parties were to blame, since President Clinton also hosted Enron chief Ken Lay as an overnight guest in the White House. Except that it never happened. He was the driving force trying to tie the Clintons to the 'murder' of Vince Foster. In an ultimately shamed attempt to try to link Bill Clinton to the suicide of a pregnant woman (in his mind, Clinton was the father, of course), he stalked the woman's mother relentlessly, despite her repeated statements that Clinton had nothing to do with it. (This mania ultimately led Bossie to sneak pass security and storm into a hospital room to confront her, where her husband was recovering from a stroke). But when he distributed doctored tapes of an interview edited to create a false impression smearing Hillary, even his party brethren had had enough. George H.W. Bush sent letters to his contributors, urging them not to support Citizens United. Newt Gingrich, while House Speaker, forced the firing of Bossie from his job as a Senate staffer. Enough, they seemed to say, was enough.

But there is no stake sharp enough to pierce Bossie's Clinton-hating heart.

The ridiculous contention of his Hillary case in the Supreme Court was that his film should not be considered as promoting a vote for or against a specific candidate (thus exempting it from the regulation). The Federal Courts got it right when they said there was no other way to possibly interpret it. So they threw the suit out. But with Ted Olson leading the appeals charge in the Supreme Court (the same Olson who had argued the 'winning' side of Bush v. Gore before the high court--see previous post), Bossie knew the votes would be aligned in his favor.

In fact, the entire Citizens United case was a travesty. (A well-reasoned analysis is here). It was pushed through on an inexplicably fast track...it defied a century of precedent...and it deliberately dismissed the narrow issue of the argument in order to purposefully explode it to historic proportions, which allows the ruling to now taint all federal elections for the foreseeable future. The College Republicans win.

And I can't help but wonder whether a betrayed attachment to the unholy alliance of his youth is behind Bossie's mental illness. After all, there is one big one who got away. One who once proudly pledged allegiance to the College Republicans...but lost faith during the Vietnam War.

That turncoat? Hillary Clinton.

Two Down, One to Go (SCOTUS Treason, Part 2)

Late last year, when anger was growing over the Congressional inability to rein in the criminal bankers who created a worldwide financial disaster, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin offered an uncomplicated explanation. "Frankly", he said of Wall Street, "they own this place." No one demurred. Yes, Congress is an extension of deep and private pockets. This isn't exactly headline news.

But Americans have long held out more hope for the judicial branch of government. That's the one where the scales of justice are so nicely balanced...where blind eyes are turned toward even a hint of favoritism. In fact, the historical record here is better. Sure, the Dred Scott decision was a clear violation of human rights for the benefit of southern slave owners, but by and large even the whoppingly bad decisions have not been necessarily due to corruption.


Enter Antonin Scalia.

For a man of modest height and advancing age, he's an unlikely candidate to perform Olympian contortions. But that's exactly what he executed in December of 2000, when he back-flipped over his own stated beliefs and the high bars of legal precedent in attempts to explain away a very awkward legal dismount: why would the high court withdraw its enduring affection for states' rights and due process in order to halt a Florida recount designed to determine who, exactly, had won a presidential election? The key quote from his opinion bears repeating:

"the counting of votes that are of questionable legitimacy does in my view irreparable harm to (Bush) by casting a cloud on what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

What Scalia's doing here is obvious: 1) rushing to the conclusion that Bush, indeed, is the president; 2) wetting himself at the thought of a recount that could show that Gore actually won; and 3) taking the necessary steps to make sure that #2 could never come to pass. Clearly, he is carrying water not for the laws of the United States...but for the Republican Party. For reasons he can not apparently fathom, this controversy has never fully dissipated. In 2008, he instructed 60 Minutes, "Get over it. It's so old by now."

Well, now Americans have another treasonous decision to 'get over'. The 5-4 ruling which allows the corporate howitzers to open fire on U.S. democracy is the legitimate heir to this illegitimate business of 2000. Then, the court ruled that they had the final vote in the election of a President. This week, they assured that they would also extend that self-privilege to every federal elective office.

Once again, Scalia is front and center for the junta. He was moved to write a supporting opinion for the majority that is, in effect, a simple attack on those on the court who disagree with him. It is filled with baseless assertions (e.g., just how did he conclude that Thomas Jefferson would like modern corporations? He doesn't elaborate). In the middle of his remarks, he delivers a typical piece of tortured logic. Dismissing the dissenters' expansive evidence that people even by the end of the 18th century despised and mistrusted corporations, he asks rhetorically, "if so, how came there to be so many of them?" This is like suggesting that if slaves in the south during the same period really didn't like working for slave owners, how come there were so many slave owners?

But his opinion really reveals more than his own intellectual shortcomings. Because in his closing, he betrays his own allegiances:

"...to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate".

Wow. So, Mr. Justice, let me see if I've got this right: at heart, this isn't really about freedom of speech..it's about your mythical 'free market', isn't it? And because corporations have so much money ('principal agents'), that not only settles the issue of whether a corporation should be afforded the same 'rights' as a citizen...they are actually entitled to an enhanced version that only money can buy.

Sir, again you are exposed--by your own words.

No matter. Scalia's cherished corporations have now captured both Congress and the courts. Two down, one to go.

In the latter stages of the Civil War, Confederate forces made a desperate push toward Washington. Even though they were being routed on their home ground, they realized the strategic and emotional value to be gained should they be able to fly their flag over the capital of the country. Stunningly, they came within five miles.

Today, the threat to democracy and freedom is even closer. The corporations are rapping on the very door of the White House. But now there is no desperation. All the weapons are in their possession.

It's only a matter of time.

Free Speech Gagged (SCOTUS Treason, Part 1)

When the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon themselves to defy both existing law and their own often-stated precedents to christen George W. Bush president late in 2000, I believed I would never live to see the day when our highest court could act more corruptly.

I was wrong.

If you've ever had a waking thought about the operation of our modern U.S. Congress, you already know that it is owned and operated by big money. And that counts the majority of Democrats as well as Republicans. But today, the shameful majority on the high court joined the craven ranks of these corporate Congressional tools. They are vile. They are anti-American. They are terrorists in robes instead of turbans. And most of all, they are wrong. Be very afraid.

So now, corporations and other special interests are free to spend as much money as they like whenever they want to elect their servile slime to protect their interests. Of course, in keeping with the tenor of the times, they delivered the blow with the maximum dose of hypocrisy. Those supporting this bloodless coup wrapped their defense in a false fabric of free speech. In fact, this represents exactly the opposite. The airwaves and dwindling supply of print pages will now be sold to the highest bidders. The voices of the less well funded...and of mere citizens...will drown in a flood of cash designed to decapitate democracy.

I know this sounds hyperbolic. Understand that this is a reasoned opinion. We are entering Stalin-era territory here. Orwell was less than 30 years off. We will see rebirth of the term 'oligarchy', and see first legs given to the common discussion of 'corporatocracy'. When you watch failed bankers walk away from their ruins with millions in taxpayer-funded bonuses...while your neighbors lose their jobs...it is logical to believe that this simply can not be as unfair as it seems. Certainly some complexity must be at work that makes this farce make sense.

You would be wrong.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court speaks for its corporate masters in a new and fully unambiguous voice: "We never cared what you wanted. But now, we no longer have to pretend that we do."

Mad Man

When the four fat cat bankers sat down behind a Congressional microphone this week, network news producers held their collective breath. This was to be one of those moments; a pissed off public would find its release through a relentless grilling delivered by their elected officials.

Of course, that was never going to happen. The bankers knew they held the ultimate trump card. If pressed too hard on their role in setting the world financial markets on fire, all they needed to do was turn and ask Congress why it lit the match. After all, once Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 (details here), everything that followed was inevitable. Including the 'perfect storm' defense from the bankers, who claimed that they were victims of circumstance, helplessly incapable of seeing the conditions that surrounded them. In fact, Michael Lewis has made a compelling case that these bankers are not ignorant, simply powerless to prevent the kinds of criminality that fuel their own bonuses:

"...when extremely smart people (find) extremely complicated ways to make huge sums of money, the typical Wall Street boss has seldom bothered to fully understand the matter, to challenge and question and argue. This isn't because Wall Street CEOs are lazy, or stupid. It's because they are trapped. The Wall Street CEO can't interfere with the new new thing on Wall Street because the new new thing is the profit center, and the people who create it are mobile. Anything he does to slow them down increases the risk that his most lucrative employees will quit and join another big firm, or start their own hedge fund. He isn't a boss in the conventional sense. He's a hostage of his cleverest employees."

But this doesn't mean the week was entirely devoid of entertainment because Wall Street, as always, could rely on its manic mascot, Jim Cramer, for a good laugh. After all, they don't call his cable show Mad Money without reason. Cramer embodies the three traits that television values most: he's obnoxious, he's self-absorbed, and he's stupid. Think of an American Idol where the judges are also the contestants. That's Cramer.

But what set his performance apart mid-week was the whopping dollop of hypocrisy which he ladled on top of his typical steaming pile of misinformation. His topic was how joblessness is actually a good thing--at least for investors. Because every time a job is shifted from an American citizen to a lower paid worker overseas, a share of someone's stock increases. The way he said it, it almost sounded like that sweet moment in It's a Wonderful Life when the little girl said that 'every time a bell rings, an angel gets its wings'. (But of course, that's a bad example, because I'm sure when he watched the movie, Cramer thought the mean old banker in the wheelchair was the hero). In any case, Cramer came across just as blunt and cruel as this sounds--little people losing their jobs is a fair price to pay if it means a rich person can get a dollar richer. Sorry folks, that's just how a free market is supposed to work.

Except.

Except...

There was the priceless Cramer moment at the very height of the financial panic when the Mad Man truly earned his moniker. Even for someone who lives over the top, this performance was historic. His spittle filled the air. The veins in his skull seemed poised to pop. The occasion for this rant of rants was the collapse of Bear Stearns. Tens of thousands of investors lost hundreds of millions of dollars--these are the people whose interests Cramer lives to protect. Except that these investors were not in his thoughts this day. Instead, he was melting down at the sight of poor investment bankers thrust out on the street, carrying their belongings in simple cardboard boxes. "My people have been in this game for 25 years--and they're LOSING THEIR JOBS!!" (And those upper case letters are not hyperbole. He was screaming--literally, screaming). He thundered that the government had better step in and prevent any further shutdowns on Wall Street...before more of his 'people' were sent packing. The feds had to understand--people were losing their jobs!

Well, sorry, Jim. That's just how a free market is supposed to work.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, "the rich are different from you and me", to which Ernest Hemingway supposedly replied, "Yes--they have more money".

But too, they also have the craven and compromised Jim Cramer. Right in their deep pocket.