Demented

So the television is on this morning. One of those cop dramas, and the case is about a bigoted asshole who shot and killed a black man because he was pissed that a black guy took a taxi he considered "his." Turns out, of course, the guy has a history of racism, like writing letters to his co-op board opposing interracial couples and accusing a black co-worker of stealing his clients. The prosecutors charged him with a hate crime. His defense? Bigotry is a mental disorder.

It is. But it's not one you're born with, or one that just has a later onset. It's a learned behavior. But at any moment you can step out and start unlearning it. Or, you can keep teaching yourself bullshit, and teach it to your children too. That'll make it much harder for them to get along when they get older. Kinda like those assholes in New Jersey who named their children JoyceLynn Aryan Nation, Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie and Adoph Hitler.

I'm just sayin. Plenty of people are obviously batshit insane, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.

Like Fox "News," for example, and a whole bunch of newspapers. They showed you plenty of images from Wednesday's teabaggeries. Images like this one. Now, there's much we can say about the sign behind the taxes sign -- "silent majority no more." Things like, you've never been silent, and you aren't a majority, but we'll let them have that little delusion. Tea-ed off about taxes, that's kinda delusional too, because these same folks want a return to the Reagan years, when taxes were 10 points higher than they will be under Obama's budget. But hey, we can't all have brains and actually use them.

But that was the stated purpose of Wednesday's protests. Unless you were actually there. Then, as CNN's Susan Roesgen correctly pointed out, "This is a party for Obama bashers." She asked a guy holding a sign picturing the president as Hitler why he did so, and his response was "He's a fascist." Several times she tried to ask him why he said that, and his response each time was "Because he is."

That's kinda 8-year-old logic. Because I say so. I'm king a da world! And an asshole. Because you're not 8 years old. You're a grown man.

And that brings us to the images the right-wing media and their blind followers don't want you to see, because they want you to think they're a legitimate group of Americans just complaining about high taxes -- and we won't even go into how America has the lowest tax rate of any developed nation or that what the organizers of the teabaggeries are insterested in is not help for the average American taxpayer, who is getting a tax cut this year courtesy the president, but rather for their rich-ass selves. Go figure.

Nope, they don't want you to see the prevailing attitude at the teabaggeries -- the attitude fueled by the bloviators on the radio and tube. They would prefer that you not see images like this one.

Man, they got pissed off when idiots on the left compared GW to Hitler. Or called him a fascist. Or a torturer -- and we all know how that turned out.

But nobody at the teabaggeries said word one to guys like this one. Pity the photog didn't get his face. I'd like to splash it all over so anyone who runs into him would know what a dick he actually is.

And just like the McCain-Palin rallies during last year's campaign, the anti-Obama folks like to lie and say it's just a small part, that they're not all complete jackasses.

That much is true. They're not all complete jackasses. But most are on the scale somewhere.

Here we see Obama portrayed as some kind of maniacal street thug attacking Uncle Sam from behind. I think the text says "we must resist." How about resisting hyperbole? Somebody hit the panic button and these guys went totally berserk. It doesn't help, of course, that their heroes on the airwaves are telling them this shit.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not advocating that we take 'em off the air. Just that we be more honest about what's going on. It's really hard to have a radio show that keeps its audience by having a rational, intelligent discussion of the issues, a true debate about one approach versus another. Much easier just to say "SOCIALIST!!!!!!" and wait and see what happens.

I mentioned children earlier. Here we return to the Obama as monkey theme that featured so prominently during the campaign, this time with a child.

They like to use children -- and, interestingly, complain bitterly if the left does so. But it's really quite clear that everything is fair game if you're a conservative or Republican.

It's as if they think they own the market on children, that children on the left don't matter, I suppose, because they're parents are so incredibly wrong and perhaps gay on top of that.

Which reminds me ... remember the right wing extremist report from Homeland Security this week? And how the right got all crazy about it -- as if it were talking to them specifically? Apparently, it was, and they're not afraid at all to admit it. But get what Christian extremist Pat Robertson said? Here's a hint -- remember that he thinks gay men and lesbians are responsible for hurricanes.

Give up? Aw, try again. It's not that hard. I mean, it's not like the Bush administration ordered the report ... oh, yeah, they did. Well, it was prepared by Obama's people ... oh right, the department that prepared is headed by a Bush appointee.

OK, here's what Pat said:

It shows somebody down in the bowels of that organization is either a convinced left winger or somebody whose sexual orientation is somewhat in question.

Only a fucking queer would ever question the patriotism of somebody who advocates the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Jeez. What was I thinking.

I might have been thinking that people had a little more sense than that. I'd have been wrong, of course. After all, we're talking about folks who don't accept certified copies of birth certificates as certified copies of birth certificates. Not to mention the idea of impeaching a president after two months in office for doing pretty much what he was elected to do.

It's that whole "taxation without representation" thing again. See, these lunatics like to try to link themselves with the colonists who dumped tea into Boston Harbor. Colonists who had no representation in London. Seems I remember having an election not to long ago in which we chose 435 members of the House of Representatives, several senators, and, oh, yeah, a president.

Are these folks sore losers or what?

Remember when they called Al Gore and Joe "I really am a traitor" Lieberman "Sore Loserman" for taking the 2000 election to court after they won and had the election stolen?

This time we have Norm Coleman still fighting to keep Al Frank from being Democrat No. 59 nearly six months after the vote -- Minnesotans are rightfully getting pissed -- and in New York, the special election for Kirsten Gillibrand's seat is being held up while Republican Jim Tedisco challenges his loss to Democrat Scott Murphy. This week, despite trailing by several hundred votes, Tedisco petitioned the court to declare him the winner.

And then there's the threat of violence. Rick "Gov. Hairdo" Perry of Texas joined traitor Chuck Norris in talking openly about the Lone Star State seceding from the Union. That didn't go over so well last time, as I recall. I wasn't there, but I have read rather extensively about it. The teabaggers seem to be very confused about what constitutes treason too.

But there's that airwaves thing again. When the leaders of your party are media celebrities who command big paychecks as well as your attention, the black guy at party HQ means very little. As does IQ, apparently.

American history, of course, isn't the only thing the teabaggers have trouble with. There's that little thing they keep talking about -- socialism.

By their definition, just about any government program is socialist, including -- especially including -- the military. But given the right's propensity for hired mercenaries, maybe they'd like to open the military to a free market system too. And they'd probably take no-bid contracts on it, which means the taxpayer would be paying wayyyyyy more for the hired hands than what we pay now.

We already know what they think about that other great socialist program -- public education. And the very idea that all Americans have equal access to affordable health care, well, that's just anti-American.

I don't know of Marx would be proud, but I bet he's laughing his ass off.

So, they don't know much about history, systems of economics or government, official documents or the law, and they have no problems displaying their ignorance and bigotry.

Talk about embarrassing. Sheesh. Then there's that little problem of our president's name. It's Barack Hussein Obama. Personally, I love it that we have a black president with a funny name, if for no other than to watch the right spin itself into a frenzy over the very idea of not having a president named John or Richard or Ronald or Herbert.

They do have a problem with this name, though. And we've already addressed the impeachment thing. Although these folk may think he should be impeached just because his name is similar to the guy who ordered other extremists to fly airplanes into buildings several years ago. A guy who, incidentally, is still at large despite our previous president's declaration that we would get him dead or alive.

Really, there's just so much wrong with this group. The good news, of course, is that they didn't quite draw the millions Fox "News" tells us they drew -- that's a lie. Five Thirty-eight compiled as many non-partisan estimates of crowd size for the rallies as it could, and came up with a total of 300,000 in about 350 cities across the country -- although I have some doubts about the non-partisanship of the estimate where I live. Regardless, that's a pathetic turnout. Why, more people than that turned out just in Washington for Obama's inaugural.

But that's just it. These folks think they're right, and they think they're a majority, both of which are demonstrably wrong. The truth is that they can't stand it that they are truly and clearly in the minority -- and it's a shrinking minority.

Must be horribly frightening for them. But it doesn't excuse their irrational behavior.

That behavior may be the most pathetic thing of all, But it's par for the course from bigoted extremists, who, while 100 percent responsible for their 0wn actions, are nevertheless quite demented.


News Writer
AWOP Political Contributing Editor
Author of Stop the Press!

Cross-posted at Stop the Press!

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.


Stumblers:
Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below..

Peace Y'all

The way we were

Steve Benen at Political Animal notes what we've all been noting -- that the conservative pod people who spent seven weeks decrying Obama for tanking the market have been oddly -- or not -- quiet for the past four weeks that it's taken the Dow to rise above 8,000 for the first time in ... oh, let's see, seven weeks.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal said just a short month ago (i.e., right before the Dow started this upward trend):

Americans have welcomed the Obama era in the same spirit of hope the President campaigned on. But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

...

So what has happened in the last two months? The economy has received no great new outside shock. Exchange rates and other prices have been stable, and there are no security crises of note. The reality of a sharp recession has been known and built into stock prices since last year's fourth quarter.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

Wall Street Journal = Rupert Murdoch = Big Business = Republican. Lately? The WSJ notes that government is the only sector actually hiring people and complains that the Obama administration isn't playing GW's asinine "global war on terrorism" fear game, so labeled because the Bush administration didn't want to openly go and call it a global war on Islam -- that's what they have talk radio and Fox "News" for. Oh, yeah, and since we can't play the terrorism fear game with this administration, we'll just play the fake socialism fear game.

Of course, the whole idea of blaming or crediting a president for the rise and fall of the stock market is just plain silly, because we all know those freaky children out to make a killing and retire to the Hamptons, or GW's toney Dallas neighborhood, make their decisions to buy and sell on which way the wind is blowing, and I don't necessarily mean the political wind.

Meanwhile, both Barry Ritholz and BAGNewsNotes take on one of my favorite subjects: What the fuck was the president thinking to hire people to get us out of the mess that they were responsible for getting us into (jeez, I'd strangle one of my writers for a sentence like that).

BNN does it with this fabulous cover of TIME magazine from February 19, 1999. That's Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers, "the three Marketeers." I think Tim Geithner was too young in 1999, but then, he's d'Artagnan anyway.

BNN makes two points that I've been making for weeks now -- that the financial sector has already failed and that if the financial institutions are too big to fail, they shouldn't have been in private hands to begin with, and, in fact, they weren't. The government has been gaming the system for them all along, with lots of campaign contributions to back it up.

A new report by Wallstreetwatch.org reveals that from 1998 to 2008, the finance industry made $1.7 billion in contributions to Washington politicians (55 percent to Repubs, 45 percent to Dems), spent $3.4 billion on lobbyists (3,000 of them on the industry payroll in 2007 alone) and won a dozen key deregulatory victories that led directly to today's financial meltdown.

Inherent in the industry's push for unbridled expansion was the unstated goal of guaranteeing that they would get taxpayer bailouts if things went badly. So many investors, businesses, employees and others would be hooked into these multitentacled blobs that government would be compelled to rescue the banks from their own excesses.

Knowing that they could privatize all of the profits from quick-buck schemes and socialize the losses, bankers were unleashed to do their damnedest. Which they did.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Richelieu (formerly played by Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke, now only portrayed by Bernanke) has d'Artagnon's backing to create yet another regulatory entity, one which no doubt will work just as well as the one we actually have that didn't do its job, largely because it's the banking industry that regulates the watchdog. Talk about your fox and henhouse.

Ritholz targets Athos -- Larry Summers -- for his crimes, noting that he's made quite a bit of money from one particular hedge fund and speaking engagements at various financial institutions. Where might his loyalties lie? Certainly not with the American public. Ritholz:

If the history books eventually judge the Obama administration a failure, they may have to point to one horrific appointment as the root cause of the misguided policies: The 'Smart Guy' who decided to continue the 'Dumb Guy’s' policies.

Sara Robinson, writing at the Campaign for America's Future with Terence Heath in the "Time to Deliver" series, writes that it's crucial to push this administration to make some actual change, else that change will be made for us something else I've been saying).

In short: The Bush administration left behind a political, economic, and social pressure cooker that was building up a dangerous head of steam toward violent, revolutionary change. Obama's lifted the bobbler and let a bit of that pressure escape; but the seal is still tight, and the heat under the pot is rising faster than ever. If he doesn't find a way to resolve these issues and/or channel the outrage soon, Davies' model suggests that our last best chance for peaceful evolution will soon enough be behind us, leaving us to work this transformation out on by far more barbaric means.

...

The important fact about this new era we find ourselves in is this: We can't ever go back to how it was. The world we've known since World War II is gone, and it's not ever coming back. Americans are in varying stages of accepting this reality -- but the sooner they do, the better off we'll be. There are vast structural changes (which, in themselves, are fodder for another post) that are profoundly re-shaping our entire reality, and which are not going away no matter how insistently our elites try to obfuscate or deny them. One way or another, now or later, we are going to be forced to address those shifts, and devise a new economy, new technologies, and new social priorities that will enable us to adapt to them.

The only real choice we have right now is whether we're going do this change the easy way -- thoughtfully, exercising our collective foresight to make clear-headed decisions that will ease us through a peaceful and relatively smooth transition; or whether we'll choose to go down hard by continuing to postpone dealing with it, building up the pressure until there's an inevitable explosion that utterly flattens us economically, environmentally, politically, and socially. That's the deal now. Face up to it while it's relatively cheap and easy; or face up to it later, when our options and resources will both be much fewer.

This is what the conservatives don't get: We can never go back to the way it was. I'm not sure if Obama gets that, and I'm sure the Marketeers and their friends don't, and guess who has the president's ear on these matters?

When he should be listening to Stiglitz, Ritholz, Krugman and Johnson, Obama is listening to Bernanke, Summers and Geithner -- Paulson and Greenspan being at least physically out of the picture.

That needs to change. And soon.

News Writer
AWOP Political Contributing Editor
Author of Stop the Press!

Cross-posted at Stop the Press!

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Stimulation

For all you ill-informed citizens who think that the New Deal didn't save us from the last time Republican policies had been carried out for too long, listen up.

I know, you like to say that World War II brought us back from the brink of disaster. And y'know what? You're actually right about that. It was that great war that pulled us up out of the depths of Republican depravity.

But those nay-sayers who like to trash Roosevelt while making the case that President Obama's plans won't get us out of the mess they got us into are missing one teeny-tiny little point. Just what was it about World War II that allowed us to recover economically?

World War II was one gigantic stimulus plan. If there hadn't been a Pearl Harbor, if Hitler hadn't tried to take over Europe, Roosevelt's New Deal would have continued -- and succeeded as well as the war did -- because we pumped money into the economy and put people to work.

And while we're at it, it was all a little bit of socialism, that word that so terrifies the unwashed masses and their well-heeled masters in Washington and on the airwaves. Columnist Don Williams:

Face it. Nothing is more socialistic than the military culture, where you have men and women living in government housing, driving government jeeps, tanks, planes and boats, shooting government guns, eating government food, wearing government clothing and partaking of government healthcare. Everyone’s pay falls within well-defined boundaries, so the staggering inequities in pay — the kind dragged into the light by so many Wall Street scandals -- scarcely exist in the military.

Privates and generals make a guaranteed annual income and salaries are capped by the government. Everyone who signs up for service is treated to goodies at taxpayer expense for the rest of their lives. Government counseling, medical care, pensions, disability payments, education and so on are provided for by a grateful public all too willing to be taxed in order to support the troops.

...

I bring this up not to advocate turning America into a military welfare state, but just for clarity’s sake. The chief point is that anyone who says Roosevelt’s big-spending policies didn’t end the Great Depression has no leg to stand on, not even one of those expensive titanium legs our government hires doctors to provide wounded troopers. Roosevelt spent more, not less, after the war started.

So whether it was the New Deal or World War II that ended the Great Depression, the chief engine of change was a massive infusion of federal dollars into the American and global economy for more than a decade. It’s a transfer on the order of what Obama intends as he retools the grid, healthcare, education and transportation infrastructure.

To those who say it can’t work, I have two words.

Prove it.

I have two other words. Make that four: Shut the fuck up. You so clearly don't know what you're talking about. Stop saying we can't spend our way out of this recession/depression/whatever it is, because it's only way we're going to get out of it.

And hopefully, we can do it without the "benefit" of spreading our ridiculous and illegal wars any further than they've already spread, because that was one damned bloody and deadly way to jump-start the economy.

So far, though, Bush's wars haven't done much with the economy except drain it, and that may have been his point all along.

But we do know this for sure: The "loyal" opposition is decidedly disloyal, now trying to hedge their treason by saying they don't want the president's policies to succeed instead of saying they don't want him to succeed. It's the same damn thing. Treason.

They only want to keep doing what they've been doing for the past 30 years, no matter how much Mitch McConnell says the GOP can get better now without that GW albatross around their necks.

Well, Mitch, old buddy, why didn't you act like he was a fucking albatross during those eight years you marched in lockstep with him on every damn thing he wanted done?

Oh, that's right. Because he's only an albatross now that you've finally figured out the American people hate him and what he stands for, and you need to do something to try to persuade us that you're really different.

But that's a big, fat lie, Mitch. Just like the one about how the New Deal didn't get us out of the Great Depression.



News Writer
AWOP Political Contributing Editor
Author of Stop the Press Blog

Cross-posted at Stop the Press!

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Budgeting a progressive future

Terence Heath, who blogs at his own Republic of T and at the Campaign for America's Future, announced Tuesday that he and Sara Robinson, who blogs at the Campaign for America's Future and sometimes at Orcinus, are launching a series at CAF "about the progressive values at the core of the president's budget, how to talk about it importance, and what progressives can do to pass the first truly progressive budget we've seen in decades."

That's exciting as hell. But that was at the end of the column. What Terence said before he got to that part was what really got to me.

Terence reminded me that we Americans -- most of us anyway -- don't really know what something truly progressive and new can look like. "The real transformation hasn't happened yet," he wrote.

People don’t yet have a tangible vision of something better than the past eight years or the current crisis. They have hope, but hope wears thin if people have nothing that they can see with their own eyes, hold in their hands, or experience in their own lives as evidence of the possibility of something better.

Quoting from "Ending Slavery" by Kevin Bales (about modern slavery), Terence wrote that

It was only when people began to have a vision of something better that they would rush toward change. He noted how it was only after reforms occurred or economic prosperity arrived that popular revolt began.

And in that passage, Bales was paraphrasing the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville -- author of "Democracy in America -- from a letter he wrote in 1853.

It is almost never when a state of things is the most detestable that it is smashed, but when, beginning to improve, it permits men to breathe, to reflect, to communicate their thoughts with each other, and to gauge by what they already have the extent of their rights and their grievances. The weight, although less heavy, seems then all the more unbearable.

That is just about where we are now, as Terence put it, "the anteroom of that transformational moment."

People are waking up, seeing what's been done to us for the last 30 years -- and particularly the last 8 -- and starting to grumble. Some of us are much more clear about what we're grumbling about, and some of us are just plain misguided about what we're grumbling about. But discontent is fast becoming the order of the day.

Now we need a direction, and the impetus to move in that direction. The president's budget may be just the ticket -- and you know the Republicans and the Blue Dawgs are gonna be fighting tooth and nail to limit what this budget can do. They've already started.

As Terence points out, this budget sings a new tune about America and its people. It's about an America whose people rely on one another, who work together, who cooperate -- who aren't out to see "what's in it for me." It is, he wrote, "a progressive budget that has at its core the understanding that government can and should have an important role in finding ways out of the current crisis and in reviving the economy."

More than that, it's a budget that recognizes that — rather than the 'You're on your own,' everyone-for-themselves conservative policy of the past 30 years — recovering from this crisis, reviving the economy, and thriving as families, communities, and as a nation means recognizing that we have some degree of responsibility to and for one another, because our faces are undeniably tied together.

That, itself, would be transformational. But first we have to offer more than more than a vision of something better. We have to make the beginnings of that vision, and the progressive values it embodies, felt in the lives of more Americans.

Now is our time to deliver. If we can turn progressive values into policies that make a real impact in the lives of every day people — whether it's jobs, health care, etc. — the transformation the country needs, and that the world needs us to make, will almost take care of itself.

This budget has its shortcomings. It can't possibly be all things to all people. But it is a world away from the policies of the past. We could do far worse than to pass it -- and frankly, letting it fail isn't an option. Not if we really, truly want to see the change many of us have been seeking.

It will happen, of course -- the transformation. As I've said before, it's just a question of whether we want to do it now, the hard way, or later -- maybe another generation later -- the excruciating painful way. As usual, the Republicans are looking at it through their own myopic lenses. What we're bequeathing to our children and grandchildren is not mountains of debt but a society that takes its strength from its people rather than the size of a handful of people's portfolios.

Either way, the time is right. It won't be easy. And it will likely be terrifying -- great change, real transformation always is. But the old ways have finally failed. They're on life support. They can continue that way for a while yet. But the end will come.

I'd rather pull the plug now and start the heavy lifting of change.

News Writer
AWOP Political Contributing Editor
Author of Stop the Press Blog

Cross-posted at Stop the Press!

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

The fix Is In?

Does it seem obvious to anybody else that the mainstream media, most notably CNN, is going out of its way to hang this entire economic situation (framed in easy-to-understand "villain/scapegoat" shorthand with the AIG story) around the neck of the Obama administration?

Even supposedly liberally-biased MSNBC last night was painting this whole thing as the supposed tipping point for Obama's popularity, and a threat to getting his agenda done.

The worst of it, though, was Friday's reporting. Check out this CNN story, headlined "Geithner Treasury Pushed For Bonus Loophole", where the story opens with:

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CNN Thursday his department asked Sen. Chris Dodd to include a loophole in the stimulus bill that allowed bailed-out insurance giant American International Group to keep its bonuses."

Except that there's a slight problem. According to CNN's own transcript of the interview, he didn't say that, and in fact, when specifically asked, he said "No." The relevant passage (emphasis added):

Velshi: But inadvertently, might somebody at Treasury have told Sen. Dodd to do something that has now resulted in these payments not being able to ...

Geithner: No, again, what we did is just express concern about the vulnerability of a specific part of this provision, the legal challenge, as you would expect us to do, that's part of the legislative process, but again, his bill also has this very important provision that allows us to go back and see if we can recoup these payments, and we're going to explore that, but in any case, we're going to make sure that the American people are compensated for any payments we can recoup."

So CNN is reporting something that's directly contrary to what Geithner said, and it's being picked up by everybody else.

I figured that the entrenched interests would be threatened by Obama's plans, but I never figured they'd be so blatant in their attempts to drag him down.

Mark Bruno
AWOP Political Contributor
Author of Left Of Center Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all