Phew, that felt good to get off my chest

Thanks, Garrison Keillor

I think he covered just about everything except for the gun nuts.

Very Proud

I know I've said some very disparaging things about the average American (and rightfully so) but my heart is filled with pride tonight that Americans refused to be denied their rights and went out and voted -- standing in long lines to do exercise the right that ALL AMERICANS have, to help determine the outcome of elections that will help determine their futures.  And I'm very proud also of the people who came to the aid of those who waited to vote by bring them food, water and warmth.
I'm obviously happy with the result of the Presidential election and think that result is very telling as well, and that the vast majority of the wingnuts in Senate races lost as well.  Maybe there's hope for us after all.
In the immortal words of George W. Bush, "I've earned some capital in this election and I plan to spend it."  The people have spoken.  If you're not going to help, get the fuck out of the way.  I think this election also proves that the people are still stronger than the vast amounts of money and influence of a few, something that I wasn't so sure of too long ago.
Finally, congratulations to Angus King, our new independent Senator from Maine.  Now we've elected three independents to very high office.  Good night, America.

Character

One of my best friends from high school is a self-described "lifelong Republican" and for the past eight years has been the State Representative in my hometown area, the one I was raised in, went to school in and moved back to almost two years ago.  There is a reason we were friends, at least from my perspective anyway, because Stacey Fitts was a genuinely good person of character.
At this point I'll stop blowing smoke up his ass and let his own deeds and words make the point.  The following is a recently-released commercial "starring" Stacey urging Mainers to vote yes on  Question 1 this fall.


I have actually not seen the commercial yet on television.  Where I learned about this was from Stacey sharing this editorial on Facebook that was written by Bill Nemitz in the Portland Press Herald entitled One Man's Turnaround Reflects a Sea Change.  It is a very well-written article and provides a great deal of background to this story.

This is not the first time he's publicly disagreed with his party and has continued to do so even now that Republicans control both Houses in Maine and the Governor's office.  He has sat on energy-related committees and has always formed his own opinions, some in disagreement with his own party, and has not been shy in publicly disagreeing with Governor LePage.  Recently he wrote the following op-ed in the Bangor Daily News chiding the Governor for making Maine's energy policy a political football.  I know when I read what Stacey has to say on these issues, I'm getting it fair, honest and straight, whether I agree or not.  I wouldn't expect anything less from the man I've called my friend for at least 40 years.  Hey buddy, if you read this, the next Fresca's on me.

I do need to add that this piece as it initially formed in my head was supposed to be a piece in support of Question 1 and legalizing gay marriage in Maine, as opposed to being back-slap for Stacey.  But since it has sorta turned into that, I want to thank him for his eight years of honest service to this community and the people of Maine, and to thank him for his support on this issue.  Make sure you vote in November no matter how you feel about these issues but make sure you have as much honest information as you can get.

Thank you, Senator Pressler

Thank you, Senator Pressler, a Republican, for so succinctly and eloquently and passionately saying what needs and should have been said for quite some time now.  Below is an excerpt from Senator Pressler's endorsement letter of President Obama:

As a combat veteran of two tours in Vietnam with twenty-two years of service as a Republican member of the U.S. House and Senate, I endorse President Barack Obama for a second term as our Commander-in-Chief. Candidates publicly praise our service members, veterans and their families, but President Obama supports them in word and deed, anywhere and every time.
 

 This is a rather long letter as far as letters go but it lays out so well why it's not even close when it comes to how much support the President has given the troops and the military, and how much the Republican Party has let them down, which is putting it kindly, and presents a stark contrast between the President and Mr. Romney.  This is something the average conservative has ignored for years, though admittedly so has the average Democrat.  If you haven't read this letter, you need to and you can do so here.  It'll be interesting to see whether this gets anywhere near the press coverage and conversation it deserves.
Brent, I assume living in South Dakota, you've seen this?

And I want to throw in a great quote (sort of, since I don't now remember it exactly) by Chris Matthews tonight, paraphrasing, "Why do conservatives believe that the way to get rich people to work harder is by giving them money but the best way to make poor people work harder is by making things more difficult." 

It's not about team

Watching the first of the Presidential debates, at the same time seeing my Facebook wall plastered with status updates from my conservative friends along the lines of "Obviously Romney/Ryan are right," thus the President isn't, coming from people who would gladly take George Bush back today if it were possible, rooting for their team because it's their team.  No way on earth will you ever convince me that a single one of them has any idea what the President has done, what he will do and what he stands for.  They don't care because he's on the other team.
I guarantee you that if I put the President's positions in front of them but put a picture of a man, preferably white, with a Republican label on him, they'd lap it up.  How else can you explain them being for a guy, Romney, who stands for nothing except for everything when it's convenient depending upon who he's talking to at the moment?  They blame the President for the very things his predecessor, that Bush guy again, did, while they stood back and did nothing but applaud.  Many, many of the things the President has put forth and done were previously supported by Republicans, even originated with Republicans, before a Democrat decided to do some of them.
So I'll say again, if you switched the labels in front of these guys and somehow made them both unknown to conservatives, they'd pick the guy they don't want to pick.

POST DEBATE UPDATE:  First, let me say that I'm very disappointed in the President's performance tonight.  Not once did he really in some way, shape or form call Romney the liar that he is or take him to task for sounding like a Democrat tonight -- yet another reincarnation from the Supreme Flipflopper.  Now he's for things the President and liberals are for and I can still see my conservative friends lapping it up.  They truly are not paying attention.  Color me scared that this is even possible.

Sliding Scale

There's a reason why the the political and media right attack Rachel Maddow more than any of the other political show hosts on MSNBC.  Yes, she's the most liberal -- with the possible exception of Dylan Ratigan, they're all liberal obviously -- but the reason why they choose her as the poster child of the liberal media is because she's the one who most has her facts and her act together.  The right has always been very successful at holding someone up and demonizing them, labeling them as something to fear in a successful effort to keep their readers, listeners and partisans from even finding out for themselves what someone stands for.
Many times I've watched her show and felt, like I have with the others, that she's dead right but the difference with her is that she takes you to school and backs it up with lots of facts, evidence and proof.  Watching her first segment two nights ago was a textbook example of this, even more so than usual; but the reason I'm sharing this is because it's a wakeup call.  More often than not her topics of illustration bring to light something even the most informed hadn't thought of or noticed.  Also, there's an excellent interview at the end of the following clip with Maine's Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree regarding this issue and whether she's likely to run for Senator Olympia Snowe's seat.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Many of us moderate liberals have felt this going on for some time now.  Now is the time to put a stop to this and, if any, start dragging the center back to the left.
Cross-posted on For Consideration

Anti-American

Carl Rove is offended -- not upset, offended -- by the Chrysler Corporation ad with Clint Eastwood that aired during the Super Bowl.  First, let me step back.  Hey Carl, who the fuck are you anyway?  On what basis do you have a right to be offended by anything anyone does, unless it was directed at you?  Get your fat, egotistical head out of your selfish ass.
The other point I'd like to make loud and clear is this:  Ask yourself what response the Carl Roves of the world would have if someone of liberal leanings were to ever be so bold as to disagree, say nothing about being offended by, with anything Clint Eastwood said or did?  That's right, they would've called you a pinko, commie, liberal, unAmerican so-and-so, and ask that you leave their country at once.  (The same crowd, by the way, that places bumper stickers on their trucks saying "If you don't love America, leave it" right next to their rebel flag bumper sticker)
So I have to say, not for the first time either, that Carl Rove is unAmerican and his umbrage is anti-American.  What other response is there to someone who takes offense at something done by arguably the most iconic of American symbols?
Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it.  Tell me what could possibly be offensive about asking us all to unite and knock off the partisan horseshit?



And for the sake of full disclosure: I am a liberal, a proud American who served his country, a huge Clint Eastwood fan and a Mopar guy. So this commercial is pure love for me. I guarantee The Greaseman had a boner when he saw the commercial.

UPDATE:  Here is a link to article regarding Clint's response to the uproar about the ad, as well as at the top you'll now find a link that contains Rove's comment, which I forgot to include.

He Went to a Tea Party Instead

I am very disappointed in Tim Thomas' decision to make a political statement by not attending the Boston Bruins' championship visit to the White House.  I find it specious at the very least that he picks this moment, this event, to come out of the closet.  I'm a pretty avid Bruin fan and this is the first I've heard of his political leanings, and to choose a non-political event to make a statement to me smacks of politics.
Oh, I know, you'll say since I'm on the opposite side of the fence from TT that that's biasing my thoughts on this.  Hardly.  I would say the same thing if an apparent liberal athlete had turned down a visit to the White House to see President George W. Bush.  This isn't a political event -- it is a celebration, a reward, an honor to get to visit the President of the United States; and Tim Thomas, being one of only two American-born players on the team, should know this.  In fact, he does know this and, thus, my point.

Here's Tim's statement from his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL." – Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, on his Facebook page, January 23, 2012"

 Don't get me wrong, TT has every right to his views and every right to make this statement -- just don't insult our intelligence.  Also, he needs to understand that what he did was a selfish act, drawing attention to himself and his cause regarding a nonpolitical event, that does nothing but embarrass himself and most importantly the Bruin organization and his teammates.  His teammates and the Bruin brass have been having to deal with the questions regarding Tim's absence for two days now.  And as an avid Bruin fan who happens to be a liberal, I don't appreciate being put in the position of having to either defend or disagree with this stunt.  I know the following will sound foreign to a conservative but, "Hey Tim, if you don't like it, leave it.."  That's the very same thing conservatives say when liberals complain about government; the difference is we have a lot more class regarding picking our moments.
This stunt should not affect the decision the Bruins will have to make in the off season regarding TT's age and contract vis-a-vis Tuukka Rask's age and contract; but if the Bruins decide they don't want to pay two #1 goaltenders #1 goaltender money in long-term contracts and decide to trade Thomas, I hope they trade him to a Canadian team.
My position on this is no different than it was when NASCAR fans in Florida booed First Lady Michelle Obama.  It's a nonpolitical event; she's there for the troops and I would've defended Laura Bush with the same passion.  Tell me, Tim, with a straight face that you wouldn't have gone to the White House to shake the hand of a Republican President?
Give the President his props, he made a couple of zingers at the Bruins' expense.  He rattled off the names of all four New England sports teams, that they'd all won championships lately and that "that's enough Boston."  He also picked on Brad Marchand by calling him the "little ball of hate."

Hitchens on Kissinger

Not only is this post dedicated to Christopher Hitchens, it is dedicated to Deb, a good friend whose shared respect and admiration for his writings prompted me to endeavor to read his long essays, arguably some of his most important works.  It would be impossible to thank him enough for these invaluable works; the best we can do is honor him by reading them.  They will at once open your eyes, make you question why what he reveals is not much more well known and piss you off to no end.  He would appreciate the latter very much.
Before we get to that though, I would like to share the BBC tribute to Hitch that aired shortly after his passing.

I'm not sure whether I'm going to do one of these each time I read one of his long exposes -- that is my intent -- but I'll share a link to a collection of the best of them (courtesy of The Daily Beast) so that you'll have them in case I fail to follow through.
This first installment is regarding the essay(s) Hitch wrote indicting Henry Kissinger as a war criminal for his hand in sabotaging the 1968 Paris Treaty talks and, therefore, extending the Viet Nam War, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of human beings in total.  (Side note:  As a result of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, Kissinger and Le Durc Tho were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which Tho refused.  Know this before you read Hitch's essay and make sure you have a pail handy to puke in)
The very short version is that Kissinger as a liaison for Richard Nixon, the Republican Nominee for President, secretly had meetings with the South Vietnamese government in the late summer and early fall of 1968, telling them that they could get a better deal in peace talks with them once Nixon was elected than they were currently getting with the Johnson administration or with a potential Humphrey administration -- private citizens undermining the peace negotiations between the U.S. Government and a foreign government.  Now, there's no guarantee the 1968 peace talks would have succeeded in ending the Vietnam War or that, if it had, the war wouldn't have restarted; but the terms of the 1973 Accords are practically identical to what was on the table in 1968.  So I and Hitchens would make the argument that if it succeeded in '73, it would have succeeded in '68.
So what did Nixon and Kissinger have to gain by doing this?  Obviously making the Johnson Administration and its heir apparent Humphrey Administration look inept and, therefore, giving the election to Nixon, only at a cost of thousands and thousands of lives, a small price to pay when you're right.  Right?

It will take you an hour or so to get through that first long essay but I couldn't encourage you more strongly to take the time to do so.  Have a glass of scotch in honor of Hitch while you do so, the time will pass quickly and you'll be ever so glad you did.
I'll leave you with the last two paragraphs of his essay regarding Kissinger and Viet Nam:

When the unpreventable collapse occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam, in April and May 1975, the cost was infinitely higher than it would have been seven years previously. These locust years ended as they had begun--with a display of bravado and deceit. On May 12, 1975, in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge seizure of power, Cambodian gunboats detained an American merchant vessel named the Mayaguez. The ship was stopped in international waters claimed by Cambodia and then taken to the Cambodian island of Koh Tang. In spite of reports that the crew had been released, Kissinger pressed for an immediate face-saving and "credibility"-enhancing strike. He persuaded President Gerald Ford, the untried and undistinguished successor to his deposed former boss, to send in the Marines and the Air Force. Out of a Marine force of 110, 18 were killed and 50 were wounded. Twenty-three Air Force men died in a crash. The United States used a 15,000-ton bomb on the island, the most powerful nonnuclear device that it possessed. Nobody has the figures for Cambodian deaths. The casualties were pointless, because the ship's company of the Mayaguez were nowhere on Koh Tang, having been released some hours earlier. A subsequent congressional inquiry found that Kissinger could have known of this by listening to Cambodian broadcasting or by paying attention to a third-party government that had been negotiating a deal for the restitution of the crew and the ship. It was not as if any Cambodians doubted, by that month of 1975, the willingness of the U.S. government to employ deadly force.
In Washington, D.C., there is a famous and hallowed memorial to the American dead of the Vietnam War. Known as the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial," it bears a name that is slightly misleading. I was present for the extremely affecting moment of its dedication in 1982 and noticed that the list of nearly 60,000 names is incised in the wall not by alphabet but by date. The first few names appear in 1959 and the last few in 1975. The more historically minded visitors can sometimes be heard to say that they didn't know the United States was engaged in Vietnam as early or as late as that. Nor was the public supposed to know. The first names are of the covert operatives, sent in by Colonel Edward Lansdale without congressional approval to support French colonialism. The last names are of those thrown away in the Mayaguez fiasco. It took Henry Kissinger to ensure that a war of atrocity, which he had helped to prolong, should end as furtively and ignominiously as it had begun.

Oh yes, they did

How can someone as successful and, therefore, intelligent as Donald Trump be so delusional.  And with Trump it isn't your entry-level delusion like he could win the Republican nomination (which he did say actually) or that he could win the Presidential election as an independent but it's how he says he'd win...by doing well with "the blacks and unions and Latinos."    See for yourself below, starting at the 3 minute mark.  Please run for President, Donald, please! That I would love to see.



Next we have Millard Romney talking about, of all things, the entitlement society. In his case I think he's so out of touch he truly doesn't know that these "entitlement programs" couldn't be further from entitlements. We pay into Social Security, unemployment, etc, so that they'll be there when we need them; something that someone who's inherited his worth and, therefore, has enormous wealth would never understand the need for.
No video this time, just a reason to get you to read yet another spot-on article by Robert Creamer, from which I'll share a few quotes to lure you in.

It really takes chutzpa for a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to rail against an "entitlement society." Here is a guy who got his start in life the old-fashioned way -- he inherited it.

No, Romney is much more interested in privatizing Social Security and Medicare so his Wall Street buddies can get their hands on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds -- even though that would eliminate the guaranteed benefits that are so critical to the health and welfare of America's seniors.

In fact, he seems to agree with the Republican leaders of the House who say that unemployment benefits discourage people from looking for work. Guess Mitt has never been one of the five people competing for every available job. Oh, I forgot, Mitt says he is "unemployed" too. Talk about out of touch.

And then thanks to my friend, Lady A, for pointing out the clip below. You can read her at Thoughts From 16th Avenue. It's always nice to see the Faux News vetting system fall short.


RJ, you'll be glad to know I decided not to steal your "They Said It" idea. :)

Creating false enemies

Sparked by another seemingly innocent graphic going around Facebook, I feel the need to point out the blind, ignorant, one-way thinking of the further-to-the-right-everyday crowd, the war-against-Christmas crowd, the war-against-the-poor crowd.  The graphic at issue simply has an arrow pointing to the poster with a holiday theme and the words "This person DOES NOT say Happy Holidays; this person says Merry Christmas...get over it!"  This is a perfect example of creating an enemy, creating something bad that doesn't really exist as a way to be divisive and as a way to rally one side (the goodie goodies of the right) against the evil liberal elitist, god-hating heathens of the left.  It's the same ploy they use to try to make you think there are people who are against the troops when they say things like "Support the troops...there are far too many people who don't," when in fact neither they nor you know a single soul who doesn't believe in supporting the troops.  As it relates to the Christmas versus Holiday War, the same rebuttal applies -- you don't know a solitary soul who has a problem with someone saying Merry Christmas but the Merry Christmas crowd surely has a problem with you NOT saying Merry Christmas.  "You MUST say Merry Christmas or else we're falling into a godless society or worse."  Whatever happened to free speech and freedom of religion?  Being told you must believe and observe the way they do is quite the opposite, yet they like to use your lack of agreement with them as a sign that you're oppressing them, when in fact it is they who are trying to oppress you.  You have to admit it's brilliant and it works, unfortunately, over and over and over.

There are correlations with the above to an outstanding editorial comment by Rachel Maddow last night.  I don't want to be too wordy.  I'll just invite you to watch this 12 minute clip and pay attention to things like voter fraud, farm dust, In God We Trust and drug testing people who are on unemployment or welfare and look for the ulterior motive. I couldn't more strongly urge you to watch this clip. It is one of the best essays I've seen in some time. Thank you, Rachel. It's important we all realize what the true motives and ideologies are of these people.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Which is a nice segue into a very brief discussion regarding Ayn Rand.  What these people really want is a society like the one envisioned by Rand in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, one that goes against the progressive value of togetherness and replaced by a simpler dog-eat-dog model.  I would encourage you to read The Real Attack on the Spirit of Christmas Comes From the Right Wing, the latest article by one of my favorite writers, Robert Creamer, where he outlines very well the endgame of this ideology and how it contrasts not only with our progressive ideology but quite often with the same people who support it, another example of the hypocrisy of the love thy neighbor religious right.  Below is my favorite quote:

Progressive values: that we're all in this together, not all in this alone; unity not division; hope not fear; equality not subjugation; the premise that if each of us is better educated all of us will be wiser; that it is not true that for me to be richer you have to be poorer -- but rather that if each of us is more prosperous, all of us will have more opportunity; that our success comes from cooperation and mutual respect. These progressive values are the most precious assets that will give human beings the ability to make it through that gauntlet -- and to create a truly democratic society.

I would also encourage you to read my friend RJ's review of The Fountainhead, "Another Selfish Manifesto Ending, at Heels N Martinis.

If we don't talk again beforehand, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, my friends.

Are liberals never satisfied?

In a word, no, which is a good thing in the sense that it keeps things going forward, another reason we're also called progressives.  Obviously it's a "bad" thing when it makes you always look at the glass as being half empty instead of half full, which is paradoxical to me because I feel liberals overall are optimists, not pessimists.
This discussion is prompted by Jonathan Chait's provocative article in New York Magazine, Debunking Obama's So-Called Leadership Failure.  While the article is not completely taking liberals to task --

Okay, so if Obama openly endorses a bipartisan plan, he’s killing it. And if he keeps his distance, he’s also killing it. What if he tries to directly negotiate a deficit reduction plan behind closes doors? Well, Obama did that, too, this last summer. Republicans opposed it as well.

-- it does most certainly do that.  "Various fiscal scolds have been scolding President Obama for failing to use his mind-control powers to force Republicans to accept a tax hike."

And it is true that many liberals look too fondly at historic Democratic Presidents, seemingly forgetting the warts and the fact that at the time we were just as critical and not satisfied with that President as we are with President Obama today.  Now, to be fair, that particular predilection is not owned by Democrats.  Republicans too have a tendency to view past Republican Presidents this way.  The difference is they view current Republican Presidents with the same rose colored glasses.
I think what's useful about this discussion is an effort in determining whether it is overall a good thing or bad thing that liberals are generally never satisfied.  I don't think there's much debate about whether we are, in fact, never satisfied, though you're certainly entitled to disagree.  What results from our tendency to view things the way we do is a much more accurate view of reality.  We tend to care very little (especially us Independents) whether there's a D or an R in front of your name; we will scrutinize your words and actions about as fairly as possible, given that all human beings have a lean towards their personal biases.

Also Jonathan Chait was interviewed regarding his article by Chris Matthews on Hardball along with Salon's Joan Walsh; and Joan Walsh makes a very good statement regarding our values about 3/4 of the way through this interview.  It's a lively and fun poke at ourselves, well worth watching.  (Chris doesn't interrupt as much as he usually does)
 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So I agree, we're never satisfied but I don't think that at all means we're not mostly reasonable.  Everyone's unreasonable sometimes.

Dishonorable Mention

What happens when one party doesn't care about deficits until the opposing party is in the White House?  What happens to deficits when one party only asks the working class to pay off the debt that that party helped build by giving tax breaks to the richest one percent and to corporations who pay no taxes?  What happens when one party convinces its base that deficit reduction at a time of zero growth is more important than creating jobs?  What happens when one party represents the 1% percent at all cost and at the peril of the 99%?
What happens when the other party doesn't have the balls to stand up against that first party and for the people they claim to represent?
You get a gridlocked, do-nothing Congress, an economy that's working great for the 1% and failing the 99% and a Super Committee proposing benefit cuts like these:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

 If you hadn't yet realized that the Republican Party's mission of doing anything to make sure Obama was a one-term President was being done counter to what was in the best interests of the country as a whole or that "anything" was meant literally, then you should know it now.  Semper FU indeed!  If that doesn't piss you off and make your blood boil, nothing will.

Messrs. Duplicity, Grabass, Flipflop & Oops

Too bad this isn't the law firm that it sounds like.  Unfortunately it's the best Republican candidates, at least based on the tastes of the voters,  for President.of the United States.
Newt Gingrich, Inc, is the worst of the lot, if you can imagine that.  The best you can say about him is he's the smartest one of the bunch but smarts has not been a prized attribute of Republican voters, and in this instance he's the type of person who's always used his smarts for personal gain.  He's not exactly a flipflopper but more like a spinning top that's always saying whatever is convenient and convincing.  Unfortunately for Newt, he's been around a long time and his record will catch up to him and in very short order.  He is the epitome of the word politician when used in its most derisive form.  Good thing he's a "history professor" because he's soon to be history.
Where to start and end with Mr. Ubekibekibekistanstan?  He's right, you don't have to know anything to get the Republican nomination or to even be elected President, sadly.  He "doesn't know anything about foreign policy"; his fiscal policies at best came from a video game; he didn't try to have sexual relations with those women and he's the leading man in the latest Koch Brothers movie release.  Many people on the left have found him to be charming and harmless (I suppose he is harmless from the standpoint that he won't get the nomination) but his smarmy nature is starting to show through his charm or perhaps what was seen as charm was always smarminess hidden by a nice, clever smile. "Gotcha!" says Herm.
From a moderate standpoint, Romney is the most palatable of these candidates but that's like saying sardines are more palatable than rotten fish.  True, he would likely govern from the center right, something you can't say about the rest of the candidates; though ask me tomorrow and I might change my mind, if necessary.  At best he's bought and paid for, and at worst he's bought and paid for.
Poor Governor Perry, doesn't he strike you as the guy who had the best of everything handed to him, guided and steered the whole time, who suddenly finds he has to do and think on his own and has no real experience in doing so?  He really should be the Republican frontrunner since most of his positions are in lockstep with the far right he covets.  The problem is that he's done a few nice, humanitarian things as governor; his jobs record is based on Federal funding and there's that rock in the front yard.
So now that we've covered the senior partners, the junior partners are waiting for their turn -- well, other than kooky Michelle Bachmann, who started out at the big table and quickly got demoted.  For someone who needs to say outrageous things to get noticed, to me she's actually been rather sensible lately.  That's because to point out the obvious errors of the frontrunners makes her look smart because she's saying things that are actually true for a change.
Ron Paul?  Honest, stable and truly not electable, even in this historically weak field; and that would be against the Republicans, say nothing about running against a moderate Democrat.
John Huntsman?  Eminently qualified, very smart, very personable and yet you've hardly seen him because in the eyes of the Republican voters he's more a Democrat than a Teabagger.
Then there's the guy who's name when searched on Google makes your butt cheeks pucker and a few others you never get to see.
Thanks for the laughs and the great theater, Republicans; but most of all, thanks for doing a hundred debates and showing America the many faces of the Republican Party, thank you so much.

After I wrote the rough draft last night, Stephen Colbert helped me out with a fitting skit. Unfortunately, they split it into two videos.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Repeat the truth (over and over again)

Unfortunately in this echo-chambered modern world, it is very easy for lies to be layered upon lies and built into a seemingly-reasonable truth.  This is done over and over again by those who are always willing to put their self interests above the common good.  They are also cowards unwilling to stand up for their mistakes and take their medicine.  It's much easier to go to their issue-friendly echo chamber and say whatever they want to say because they know it will be supported by more lies and more lies, and believed by those who want to believe their side, until it becomes this massive entanglement of lies, half-truths, lies of omission and cherry-picked facts that not even the smartest and most dedicated person could untangle it.
It also means that it's very difficult to counter this nightmare with simple truth.  Put forth the truth in the form of facts and they'll counter-offer their own cherry picked facts.  They're willing to go further than you because they have more on the line -- their character is at stake -- whereas all you have going for you is truth; and that's a heavy, burdensome thing to carry around.  It gets very tiresome banging your head against the wall; doesn't it?  It seems as though they'll never get it.

This excellent article by Barry Ritholtz in the Washington Post, "What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral," attempts to fight back against that echo chamber on the topic of what caused the financial crisis of a couple years ago.  You can sense his frustration in having to point out the same facts yet again that everyone should already know (and probably do if they were willing to examine it honestly.)
This political cartoon is a good illustration (pun intended) of the point I'm trying to make.  One complete segment of the country still doesn't realize this is the truth because so many out there don't want them to know who really ran up the deficit.

Every day we're being told by one segment of society that the people protesting in the Occupy Movement want a handout, when the reality is simply that they want to no longer be robbed by those in power; that they just want a more level playing field.  And what frustrates us so much is that we don't understand how a significant percentage of people are still being taken advantage of because they still don't want to believe their side has lied to them and stolen from them.  It also means they would have to admit that they've been complicit to some extent by continually voting for people who've made this possible and by echoing their lies.


So we'll just have to keep hammering the truth back at them until MAYBE some day we get back to a country that's more open to truth and fairness, instead of being interested in their side winning no matter the cost.

Get the big money out of our politics

While I believe corporations should have a way to stand up for their interests, what the policy decisions of the last 30 years have resulted in is a situation where corporate money is seemingly behind every decision that is made, to the benefit of large corporations and the ultra-rich and against the middle class.
Are you tired of being robbed? Then get involved.
I strongly encourage you to read the article at this link at Huffington Post and to watch the video below. Let's see if that doesn't fire you up.


I would also strongly urge you to go to their website and get involved. You can sign the petition here as well.

Link Day

I'm just sharing some links, with comments, to articles and videos that I've found to be well written and informative in the last few days.  I hope you get something out of these as well.

First is this link from a Washington Post  article by Eugene Robinson regarding the results of a recent study by a scientist that the skeptics (more like deniers looking for any excuse to disagree) had been relying on.  Here's a salient quote from that article:
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find," Muller wrote. "Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that."
I also agree with the author regarding how much this article will change the minds, or more appropriately the position, of the political far right.
"But Muller's plain-spoken admonition that "you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer" has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.Not so, I predict, with the blowhards such as Perry, Cain and Bachmann, who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth's future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause."

This Politico opinion piece by Joe Scarborough, who is a Republican and a former U.S. Representative (though I'm sure the far right calls him a RINO, especially since he has a show on MSNBC), that fairly points out one of the constant issues in our political dialogue -- lying to make your point.  While I don't entirely agree with Joe's use of examples, I most certainly agree with his point.  To say that since Democrats supported Clinton's agenda of regime change in Iraq, they can't disagree with Bush actually doing it, is disingenuous but it's still a good article.  Here's the opening line of that piece to give you an idea what issue he's specifically talking about:
"Republicans spent the past decade being shocked and stunned by Democrats who dared to question their president’s motives for going to war in Iraq."
  
For those who still don't understand the rage of the middle class, maybe this Politico piece will help. And even this piece soft pedals the issue to some extent, but it is a fine article about the influence of money in our political system.


This excellent article from The Daily Beast reminds us that the NeoCons are still out there and that their motives and money influence and scare factor are still there.
"They’re back! The neoconservatives who gave America clueless, unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a near doubling of military expenditures, during the Bush years have risen from their political graves. Someone, maybe a media tiring of President Obama’s interminable plight, pulled the stake from their heart. Now they’ve returned to the op-ed pages, the talk shows, the think-tank discussions, and the advisory ranks of Republican presidential candidates."

Finally, I'm remiss in not consistently watching the best show on television, "Charlie Rose."  What follows is classic Charlie Rose, a half-hour, in-depth discussion on an important topic, in this instance the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Unfortunately, they don't have embed links there.  So you'll have to follow this link to watch the video.  The whole 24 minutes is very much worth watching and listening to but in particular listen to Chris Hedges starting at the 20:20 mark and see if you agree with me that it's as well said as I've heard regarding the absence of the liberal media and how he describes the Tea Party being different from Occupy Wall Street.

Semper Fi, Shamar Thomas

As a Marine, I couldn't be prouder.  Another honorable face of the Occupy Movement.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More thoughts on the Occupy Movement

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Above is an excellent interview with Ellen Schultz regarding another way large corporations are ripping off the middle class.

The Clueless Generation article in The Daily Beast.  I disagree with his premise in part.  He states that the Baby Boomers had it so good that they don't understand the current plight of the middle class.  As someone who's at the end of the Baby Boomer Generation, I and many like me can attest to feeling affected all along the 30 year ride of policy changes that got us here -- rise in education costs, deregulation, runaway debt and a flattening of wages to name just a few.  This didn't happen overnight.

Opinion piece by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich addressing the seven biggest economic lies
I don't know how many times we've stated these exact statistics and truths but they haven't sunk in enough yet.  So we'll keep on pointing them out.



From this excellent Vanity Fair article on Elizabeth Warren:"In those speeches, sometimes using slides filled with numbers and graphs, she would, as she did at a speech in Manhattan in early June, outline the impact on middle-class Americans of rising health-care costs, burgeoning debt, and the depletion of not only their savings but also, with the rise in joblessness, their confidence. She spoke of “the Wild West” conditions deregulation had created, where banks could sell virtually any product they wanted, on any terms: mortgages they knew consumers could not pay off, credit cards whose rates they could raise at whim, products that came with a mind-boggling array of penalty fees, many of them not fully disclosed. But it was her final remarks that brought down the standing-room-only house in June. “We cannot run our country without a strong middle class. We cannot run a democracy without a strong middle class,” she said, her voice quavering slightly. “If we hollow out the middle class,” she said, “then the country we know is gone.”

Did you know that Warren was originally a Republican?  (You must read this Vanity Fair article)  But to quote the article again:
It was in 1979 that Warren had her Damascene conversion—the experience that would lead her to become the nation’s top authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class, and trigger her passionate advocacy. In 1978, Congress had passed a law that made it easier for companies and individuals to declare bankruptcy. Warren decided to investigate the reasons why Americans were ending up in bankruptcy court. “I set out to prove they were all a bunch of cheaters,” she said in a 2007 interview. “I was going to expose these people who were taking advantage of the rest of us.” What she found, after conducting with two colleagues one of the most rigorous bankruptcy studies ever, shook her deeply. The vast majority of those in bankruptcy courts, she discovered, were from hardworking middle-class families, people who lost jobs or had “family breakups” or illnesses that wiped out their savings. “It changed my vision,” she said.

The only way we're going to change things for the better is to continue the momentum of the Occupy Movement by being angry and unafraid to stand up for the truth, and then to vote.  The moderates and the liberals outnumber the right in this country; and if we all show up at the polls, it doesn't matter how much they lie and how much they spend or who's on the dole.

Yesterday at the Culter rally in Auburn

It was a very good turnout at the rally, and the crowd and candidate were very enthusiastic and optimistic.  One of the key points to Eliot's speech in Auburn, aside from rallying the faithful, was to point out yet again that he promised to run a clean campaign with no negative or personal attack ads; and he's done that.  Good for you, Eliot, and good for us.
Folks, Eliot can win this thing and I feel he must win if this state is to have a chance of moving forward in a tangible way.
Ask yourselves why has every major newspaper in the state endorsed Eliot Cutler for Governor?  You can't say it's because they're partisan liberals or they would have endorsed the Democrat.  Say what you will about newspapers but I for one still believe journalists are driven by intellectual curiosity and truth.  Smart people write for newspapers.  Don't be afraid of smart people.  Listen to Eliot Cutler speak -- he's not only obviously very intelligent but he's very well informed.  He's done a great deal of research and work to determine what our problems are in this state and how they can be fixed.  He's sincere -- he's not telling us it'll be easy or that we're all going to find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.  You can feel comfortable knowing that when he becomes Governor, he'll be working for us, not for anyone else.  So return the favor -- get yourself to the polls tomorrow and vote for Eliot Cutler.  Drag along a few friends too.
If you're still undecided and want to do some research of your own, then by all means but make sure you go to Cutler's website as part of your research.
On a personal note, I went over to Eliot after the rally and introduced myself.  Yours truly got a little ego boost when he knew who I was, based on one little blog post.  The man obviously is a good judge of character and has a mind like a steel trap -- firm handshake too, if you're inclined to judge by such things.