Best Thing All Day: Something For America To Be Proud Of

While doing my usual blog crawl this morning, visiting my kind, smart, sassy, funny, irreverent and much loved blogging buddies, I came across this from my friend across the pond at Friko's World. Let me simply tell you I cried with gratitude.

If you're longing for a reason to be proud of America today, to feel good about our country, read this. Just do it. Thank her back.

Click on the Care Package 

Friko, dear, you could not have done a kinder or more helpful thing for us today.

A Letter for Blue Voters Living in a Red District

The following letter was written in response to a request by fellow blogger, Nance, of Mature Landscaping. Having received favorable reviews in cyberspace, I decided to make this letter available to anyone who lives in a red state or red district and wants to send a message to their local Tea Thug. Please feel free to copy it, modify it, and send to the Republican reprehensible of your choice:

Dear Representative Posey (R-FL),

You and your Tea Party colleagues seem to suffer from one fatal flaw: A callous disregard for one of our founding documents that clearly states:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed …”

How does your no compromise, hostage-taking approach to governance square with these words?  It does not.  Like a bad marriage to an abusive spouse who violates personal boundaries, you and your Tea Party Republicans fail to distinguish between YOURS, MINE, and OURS.  The United States is not just YOUR country; it is also MY country. It spends not only YOUR tax money; it spends MY tax dollars too. A public debate without compromise and consensus is not my idea of “consent of the governed.” The key word in this debate should be ‘OURS,’ not ‘yours.’

I have paid into the Medicare and Social Security system my entire life.  It is MY money, not yours. And I resent your support of legislation that will gut or eliminate MY benefits. Tantamount to THEFT, you have no right to dismantle the social safety net that generations of my forbearers struggled for ... and died for!

I resent paying higher marginal tax rates than your billionaire benefactors who refuse to pay their fair share of the burdens of civilization ... thus creating a wealth gap at MY expense.

I resent the credit worthiness of MY country being held hostage by a minority fringe group that have demonstrated more anger management pathology than common sense or common decency. When you took your oath of office, you promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution which clearly states:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

For some unfathomable reason, you think Grover Norquist’s No Tax Pledge holds more legal authority than your obligations as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

I resent the atmosphere of character assassination, bullying, and fear engendered by you and other Tea Party Republicans who have defamed and vilified every good citizen with whom you disagree.

No, Mr. Posey, you have disrespected us, verbally abused us, and now threaten to steal from us.  No longer do you deserve the consent of the governed.  Most of all, you have defiled our democracy.  At election time next year, I want a DIVORCE!

BOEHNER FAILS...

and so, here we are:

Joe Klein of Time explains:

"And so, here we are. Our nation’s economy and international reputation as the world’s presiding grownup has already been badly damaged. It is a self-inflicted wound of monumental stupidity. I am usually willing to acknowledge that Democrats can be as silly, and hidebound, as Republicans–but not this time. There is zero equivalence here. The vast majority of Democrats have been more than reasonable, more than willing to accept cuts in some of their most valued programs. Given the chance, there was the likelihood that they would have surrendered their most powerful weapon in next year’s election–a Mediscare campaign–by agreeing to some necessary long-term reforms in that program. The President, remarkably, proposed raising the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67.

The Republicans have been willing to concede nothing. Their stand means higher interest rates, fewer jobs created and more destroyed, a general weakening of this country’s standing in the world. Osama bin Laden, if he were still alive, could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation."



SPEAKER BOEHNER'S FAILURE:

A bloody nose for Boehner as he fails to collect enough support for vote on Republican plan for debt crisis

BOEHNER FAILS

BOEHNER FAILS

BOEHNER FAILS

BOEHNER FAILS

BOEHNER FAILS

You meet the nicest people in Hell

I'm not Yahweh, The Hulk or Captain America and I'm not into destroying countries with hellfire or even evildoers in hand to hand combat, but If I were, I have a feeling I would have a hard time finding enough good people to convince me to park the thunderbolts and volcanoes and floodwaters and let it all this American hate culture continue. Yes as a humanist and a non-believer, I have a hard time condoning that sort of world-drowning temper tantrum in the first place, but I sure as hell empathize with the old dude. We sure as hell deserve another dunking. Maybe in boiling water, this time.

Speaking of empathy. I walked into a shop today and as I was looking for some hardware, I chanced to hear the voice on the radio ( I think it was Rush) trying to twist the Oslo shooting story into some form where it seemed liberals ( who hate Christianity) were trying to portray the shooter as a Christian when he really was a "neo-Nazi" and they were just calling him Christian because he wasn't a Muslim. Funny how that doesn't work with Muslims not all being terrorists to inside the Rush Bubble, but never mind, amidst the tumult and the roar, I heard old anal-cyst for brains tell us "Barack Obama told us after 9/11 that we have to have empathy with Muslim terrorists"

the owner said to the clerk,

"Did you hear that? Obama told us to empathize with the terrorists" "Oops!"

Well, nail Jesus to the cross, sell your mother to a brothel, piss on everything holy, but never question Rush. It's too big a lie to deny, too tasty not to swallow. It's certainly too much work to check it out. Like so many people I'm becoming disgustingly familiar with, these nice people sit in their little store all day injecting hate, smoking hate, cooking up hate like some junky in a basement room with a needle and a spoon and who gives a damn if any of it is actually true?

Well did I pull out a gun and slaughter them? Drive back there with a car bomb? Did I even say, "no he didn't and Rush makes Satan look like Santa Claus?" Sorry to say, I didn't, not in this town, not in the gun toting, burn your house down, hide your body in the swamp Bullshit Belt. I just said, "have a nice day" and left and won't ever shop there again. I'm not proud. I'm not proud of seeing a fake statement from the First Lady saying she "will side with the Muslims" in another shop not far away and not saying anything. But I won't be returning there either.

Of course what Obama really said was:

"The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. "

The exact opposite. It's like saying "Jesus told us to hate our neighbors"

But you know, these are otherwise, friendly, nice people. The kind you'll meet in Church or civic organizations and out helping their neighbors in times of disaster: the kind Hell must be full of.

Hatred and ignorance and Rush Limbaugh, the primal ooze and petrie dish of evil. Was Brievik influenced by right wing religious intolerance or was he simply attracted to it. Should we call him Christian or a Freemason and should we call Osama bin Laden a real muslim and who gives a shit? This kind of mindless, relentless, evil dripping, malignant and malevolent propaganda is as delightfully irresistible to "felaheen America" as carrion to a buzzard and is as able to wrap itself around facts, digest them and turn them into shit as a snake.

God damn Limbaugh and all his friends and all his sponsors and all his words and all his lies and all his hate and all his wealth -- and that's as close to praying as I've come in these last 60 years.

Sending A Message To SC Rep. Tim Scott

I'm asking for your help to send a message to Rep. Tim Scott who has maneuvered himself into a pivotal position in the House of Representatives in the crucial debt ceiling and budget talks.

(I apologize for the Autoplay on the first video. I've changed the html code to autoplay=false, but that doesn't do the trick. Please, just mute your sound until you're ready to view the film)

The Washington Post published a piece today on The Fix naming five members of the House to watch today in  John Boehner's debt cliff/budget vote. One of those five is a Tea Party darling, a Palinist, and representative of my SC District 1, Tim Scott. I believe he was the first to call publicly for impeachment of President Obama if the Fourteenth Amendment was invoked to raise the debt ceiling without congressional support. He's determined to keep unions out of SC and keep Boeing in his district, so he's an active opponent of the NLRB.

I don't want to watch him; I'm embarrassed by his abandonment of the many Medicaid recipients and indigent members of District 1. But watch him I shall. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I've been writing Scott almost daily, but I don't think he's listening. So I'm going to invite you to write him, because now he's not just my problem. He's yours, too.

Scott's website requires that you prove you belong to his district before he'll let you speak to him, despite the fact that he clearly wants to speak for more than his district. Let's get to know him a bit, take a look at what he stands for and why the WP thinks he's significant. Then, you leave your message for Tim Scott here in a comment and I'll include them all in today's letter to Scott.  The man wants to be on the big stage, he needs to hear from the big audience.

Tim Scott is a freshman Representative from the coastal district of SC that includes the ports of Charleston and Georgetown and The Redneck Riviera  the lovely tourist trap mecca of Myrtle Beach, where I'm currently stuck residing. (It's clearly going to be a challenge for me to do this post straight. The pull to sarcasm is worse than a Myrtle Beach undertow!)

Scott's district includes Charleston Naval Base, which supposedly establishes its conservative chops. District 1 has been a Democratic stronghold historically (no Republican had ever served a full term from this district since Reconstruction until Ronald Reagan gathered it into the fold!).

 "Most of Charleston's African-American majority areas were shifted to the 6th District in 1992, seemingly making this district unwinnable for the Democrats. However, in 2008, Linda Ketner came within two points of shifting this district back to the Democrats.  Representative Scott is one of two African American Republicans (the other being Allen West of Florida) to represent their respective states since Reconstruction. (Wikipedia)

Scott owns an Allstate Insurance Agency in Charleston, SC and is partner in a real estate firm there. He's taken unequivocal stances in the tea party mold: He is determined to see The Affordable Care Act (healthcare reform) repealed. He supports immigration policies in line with Arizona's notorious SB 1070 and wants to force all new immigrants to learn English. This spring he introduced legislation to deny food stamps to any recipient who participates in a union strike.  Tim Scott is the African American face of the Tea Party in Congress.

Here he is meeting with his "constituents" in Summerville on July 6th:




And here's Scott on CNN two weeks ago.



Why is Tim Scott on the Five Representatives to Watch list?

 Tim Scott: Scott is a tea party darling who, despite being elected in 2010, is already regarded as a rising star in South Carolina and nationally. He is reportedly leaning “no” (on Boehner's current debt ceiling/budget vote) but he is also one of two House freshmen — South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem is the other — who were chosen as liaisons to the party leadership. If ever Boehner needed Scott’s vote, today is the day. (Washington Post)

In other words, he applied to have closer than usual access to Speaker John Boehner and he got it. If Boehner can't sell Tim Scott on this evening's vote to raise the debt ceiling under Boehner's latest plan, he can't get there from here. That plan won't make it past the Democratically held Senate and Presidency, but the slower this all goes, the closer we get to the US defaulting on debt and to the (I'm convinced) potentially devastating consequences of that.

Tim Scott wants to stand between me and you and a deal that let's us both sleep better  between now and August 3rd.

What would you like Tim Scott to know? I'll copy your comments and send them off, letting Rep. Scott know that if he wants more power and influence in Congress than his little district affords, he's going to have to listen to us all. If you don't get to this post before the vote this evening, send your comments on anyway. We'll be hearing from Tim Scott again and again, I fear, both in the near term and the long.

Billion Dollar Coins and Exploding Options -- oh my!

Maybe the President can't simply cite the 14th amendment and raise the debt ceiling, maybe he can -- but does the Constitution provide a paddle? Must he allow the Tea Party to shut down the government as the more mainstream Republicans attempted to do in 1995 during the Clinton administration?

You remember President Clinton, don't you, the guy that the snickering snarkmongers told us would only serve one term, who would destroy capitalism, plunge us into debt and start fake wars simply to allow him to become a dictator. I'm sure the parallels are coincidental. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

But Obama, even if if no Clinton, ( for better or worse) may still have options, says Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School. The Constitution has as many loopholes as the Tea Party has loonies, although some of them are as arcane as something out of the Da Vinci Code. There's the Platinum Coin gambit and the exploding Option Strategy, for instance.

Even so, all may not be lost for 14th amendment solution protagonists, like Bill Clinton and a few others says Balkin.

"If the president reasonably believes that the public debt will be put in question for either reason, Section 4 comes into play once again. His predicament is caused by the combination of statutes that authorize and limit what he can do: He must pay appropriated monies, but he may not print new currency and he may not float new debt. If this combination of contradictory commands would cause him to violate Section 4, then he has a constitutional duty to treat at least one of the laws as unconstitutional as applied to the current circumstances."

Balkin likens this dispute to recent attempts to topple the president over his ability to use the military to protect the national interest or in emergencies.

"If the courts won't intervene in the Libya affair, they probably won't intervene here."

But regardless of your opinion on the best way to beat back the barbarians, (whichever side you think they're on, Balkin's CNN exclusive interview is great reading and gives a glimmer of hope that the Constitution will do what it was designed to do, protect us.

Taking the 14th

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

14th Amendment, US Constitution
____________

Now, I'm no lawyer, which means that I generally take such statements at face value and have no knowledge of what pretzels they've been twisted into by various courts in various cases, but it seems to me that if congress can't question the validity of our public debt, then congress can't refuse to pay it or more importantly say it's only valid under a certain amount authorized by Congress after they've already deemed it legal. What do you think?

I hate to bring up the constitution at a time when the Tea Bag Patriots are pretending to worship it while claiming that those who would like to actually conform to it are "shredding it" but the situation is getting serious.

Of course this whole controversy is about "taking down" the president we elected by a good margin and replacing him with a Tea Party Republican of their choice hell bent not on reducing the debt, but killing Social Security, Medicare, all forms of welfare and any protection for the public against the health insurance cartel -- and all to make sure people like me can put an extra tank of fuel into the yacht every now and then thus creating jobs in the Bahamas and Taiwan.

After all they raised the debt ceiling every year a Republican was in office since the beginning of the Reagan administration and authorized Bush's massive debt explosion like a well disciplined private army. Remember when "debt doesn't matter" was the slogan? No? Well I do.

"Obama would be impeached if he blocked debt payments"

says Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and he'd also be impeached if he invalidated the debt ceiling based on the 14th amendment, says Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) Talk about a poker player with a 'tell.' Might as well lay the cards on the table.

It's all about impeachment and all about finding some flimsy excuse or forcing the president into a position where they will impeach him if he does and impeach him if he doesn't. No more revolting, I guess than impeaching one for asking his secretary not to tell his wife he was having an affair. Talk about insurrection and rebellion! No sooner did we lose the Cold War gravy train then we embarked on the Cold Secession.

President Clinton of course told us recently that he wouldn't hesitate to use the 14th to raise the debt ceiling and "force the courts to stop me." You'll remember of course the attempts to impeach him on any pretext and how the talk of the "failure of the Clinton Presidency" preceded the Clinton Presidency and how he would certainly be a one term president and how his tax policies would bankrupt the economy. They hope you won't remember, of course because we're hearing the same damned bullshit again.

"I think the Constitution is clear and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for [expenditures] it has appropriated is crazy.”

said Bill Clinton to The National Memo last week. No wonder slimy things like the Newt are challenging the constitutional basis for even having a Supreme Court.

Meanwhile that 3% extra tax cut I get on anything I earn over $250,000 is going to prompt me to create jobs for those struggling people now paying for the longest, most expensive wars in American history while losing their houses, jobs, medical insurance waiting for the Voodoo to kick in and save us all -- and all will be fine just in time for a Tea Party president. I can feel it in my bones.

Afternoon Update: A hat tip to Shaw at Progressive Eruptions for this graph that debunks another GOP mendacity:

The Obama administration has exercised remarkable spending restraint in accomplishing a lot, in contrast to the Bush years of gross mismanagement and fiscal profligacy.

The Greatest Country on Earth ???

If it were up to me, I would call us 'The Laughing Stock of the Galaxy.'  This is an open thread for all who care to vent (the full text of President Obama’s speech is copied under the fold - complements of DemWit):

The Oslo Massacre and the Zen of Venn

My Zen of Venn comment under Captain Fogg’s post (91 Dead in Oslo) was not intentionally directed at anyone in this forum, all of whom I count as among my closest and dearest friends and whose voices I cherish. Perhaps I should qualify what I said by mentioning this story at the CNN website, Who is the suspect in the Norway attacks? What struck me were the comments beneath the story … that were far more revealing than the story itself. Here are some noteworthy examples:

Mayaculpa: Religious belief -- of whatever stripe -- is the curse of the world. Mankind will never live in peace until he rejects all religious belief. [This is one of many comments that claim religion is the source of all violence in the world.]

Ralphlynn: I'm passionate about Christ and Christ alone, but true Christianity never advocates for violence unlike Islam. [Christian exceptionalism at its finest.]

DougLenatSux: Breivik works for Israeli intelligence and the attacks were in retaliation for Norway's statement that it would recognize an independent Palestinian state. [A pitchfork conspiracy theorist with a distinct anti-Israeli (and anti-Semitic) flavor.]

Ralphlynn: I say bring back the cruscades [sic] to knock off the uneducated … as they pose more of a threat than anyone. [A Christian Eliminationist in full regalia.]

JAYnLA: Why does this shooter remind me of Michelle Bachman?

ssa5: I bet the Tea Losers have already sent out invitations for this loser to join them. In fact I am sure Bachman and Palin are sending love letters at this very moment.

Ssearthquake: Breivik is nothing but a brain washed lunatic turned terrorist who is influenced by right wing fundementalists like the "Tea baggers" of the USA who will not stop until they see the US economy destroyed.

[As much as I loathe TeaHoos, these comments shocked me as examples of over-the-top hyperbole from our side of the partisan divide.  Suddenly, our own domestic politics are viewed through the lens of the Oslo massacre, as certain presidential candidates are erroneously and gratuitously equated with mass murder. Finally two more comments …]

Taddmike: As a Freemason in America, I was shocked to see the alleged shooter in Masonic gear. I just wanted to put it out there that any anti-Muslim sentiments the alleged shooter has are NOT indicative of the true tenets of our peaceful organization. With that said, I can safely speak for our international Brethren when I say we are heartbroken for the families of the victims. We pray for them all.

WhatARipOff1: Our ideology [note: mathematical 'greater than' sign does not reproduce in Blogger] your ideology. Gotta love politics.

It seems each of us, Democrat or Republican, left or right, has transformed the Oslo gunman into a demonic archetype with which to bash the other. Reading these comments gives me pause to consider my words more carefully before I wield them. If there are any lessons to be learned here, perhaps we should take an honest look at our anger and Venn before we vent.

91 dead in Oslo

People have made it very clear to me that Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Murrah Federal building in 1995 was not a Christian, the connection between that vicious, inhuman act and the Waco, Texas incident notwithstanding. He couldn't be, you see, by virtue of the fact that he did such a thing.

It's too bad that Muslims who are horrified by terrorism aren't given the benefit of the same rationale, but I'm still waiting to hear about Anders Behring Breivik. Despite the initial prejudice that had the Oslo bombing and the murders at a Summer camp as the work of al Qaeda, it looks like Breivik, identified by a survivor as the attacker, was a Christian Conservative disturbed by the presence of other cultures, other religions, in Norway. Would he fit in with a spectrum of Americans, from the Aryan Brotherhood to the Tea Party, trying to promote our intentionally secular Republic as a "Christian nation" and perhaps an exclusively Christian nation?

How long can we go on pretending that religious tribalism of any denomination hasn't been and doesn't remain a potentially destructive, oppressive and communicable human vice?

What is wrong with Republicans?

How does a group like the GOP manage to become a leading force in American politics? This is a group of small-minded schemers so openly venal and opportunistic that they're a top hat and handlebar mustache away from being actual cartoon villains.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, openly campaigns on the fact that his number one priority is not fixing the economy or getting jobs for the unemployed; no, his only focus is making sure that Barack Obama is a one-term president.

Eric Cantor, the House Majority Whip, currently leading the talks to prevent the economy from completely tanking, is proud of having shares in a fund that will only pay off if the economy gets worse. And nobody considers this to be a conflict of interest.

The leading lights of the party are currently pushing the 2012 Goat Rodeo: a collection of ego-driven misfits and losers so actively insane that if you can remember to pull your dick out of your pants before you pee, you're considered a front runner. (And yes, I'm including both Sarah "Undefeated" Palin and Batboy Bachmann in that metaphor.)

Since Obama was sworn in as president, the best description of the Republican "strategy" is "Deny, Delay, and Do Nothing," in the hopes that if things get worse, Obama gets the blame.

And there's a significant portion of Republican voters who buy into that theory, because they're openly stupid. Oh, and because of brain damage caused by interesting chemicals that Republican policies allow to enter our food supply - you know, paint thinner, mercury, that kind of thing...

The GOP openly lies or obfuscates about every issue, and yet, despite the unwillingness in the press to call them on it, they consistently refer to the "liberal bias" in the media.

Remember death panels? What about "Obama is a Muslim"? Or "...socialist"? "...communist"? Or even "...terrorist"?

Does anybody remember James O'Keefe? Lied about ACORN? Tried to break into a congresswoman's office and bug her phone? Yeah, he's still at it. Still not in jail. Go figure.

Despite overwhelming evidence that birth control prevents abortion and teen pregnancy, when birth control is offered through the new health care law, what’s the right-wing take on it? "Obamacare will force insurance companies to pay for abortion!"

And it's not just at the national level. Here in New Mexico, we have Teabagging governor Suzanna Martinez, who (in a move completely at odds with the standard GOP theory that rich people are happiest when you throw money at them) made an effort to slash film industry subsidies, where moviemakers have a percentage of their in-state expenditures returned to them, and one of the only requirements is that they hire 75% of their crew from New Mexico citizens.

The State Legislature only agreed to cap subsidies, which is still a disincentive to filmmakers, who have brought billions of dollars and thousands of jobs to the state. And the plan still backfired.

New Mexico will shell out an estimated $20 million to $30 million more than expected in film rebates – around $95 million overall – after film and television projects rushed to beat a July 1 effective date for a new state cap on the subsidies.

So, where other Republicans are simply doing nothing to improve the economy, our governor is losing money, driving out industry and destroying jobs. So this is what "winning" looks like?

Facebook viral material

The wealthy have been on a roll since Reagan. The rest of the country has been on a slide, while China and BRIC have become the new economic leaders, thanks to America's wealthy shipping U.S. jobs overseas: outsourcing the work as they insource the profits. But of course, you all know this. So why don't the lower and mid-income Right not seem to know? Haven't they followed the bouncing line...?

National Abuse Syndrome: Endgame

Friday, July 22, 2011. Tonight, we learned of Speaker Boehner dodging telephone calls and refusing to meet with the President. How rude! How insolent and disrespectful to the office of the President! How derelict in his responsibilities to the nation!

What is it about the language of the Constitution that Speaker Boehner refuses to read and comprehend:

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned (14th Amendment).

All Congress Critters … including the Republican leadership and their Tea Thug colleagues (but NOT necessarily their proto-fascist benefactors) … have a constitutional obligation to honor the nation’s debts. When they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, they swore an oath to follow this provision.

Bullying and holding the nation hostage for partisan gain is not my idea of protecting and defending the U.S. Constitution. So who or what holds more authority in this instance: The U.S. Constitution or Grover Norquist?

Former Republican presidents understood their Constitutional obligations. Previous legislatures, both Democrat and Republican, raised the debt ceiling 18 times under Reagan and 7 times under Bush … without conditions, exceptions or partisan hostage-taking. What makes this Republican legislature different from all others?

The Republicans refuse to govern alongside Democrats and have lost all ability to participate in a democracy comprised of diverse constituents and stakeholders. The Republicans have become a party of corporate interests that have no loyalty to the Constitution, the nation, the American economy, or the American People. In other words, the endgame is PROTO-FASCISM.

Ex Nehil Nehilo Fit

George Packer writing in the New Yorker about the debt ceiling crisis and the ever more strained fault line running through Washington, reminds us of a quote usually attributed to Vladimir Lenin: "the worse, the better."

I rather think Lenin himself was quoting Georgi Plekhanov, when he wrote his essay Three Crises in 1917, but whatever the source and however Lenin used it, I tend to agree with Mr. Packer that we're looking at a planned destruction of our economy to serve a revolutionary cause that in some ways; in it's ideological blindness to practical consequences, looks so much like the Bolsheviks, it might cause liquid irony to condense into caustic clouds and rain down upon us.

Indeed the worse this manufactured crisis becomes, the more likely it is, at least in the minds of the radical right, to destroy the prospects of Obama and the Democrats as well as our national prospects, leaving the Tea Party, like roaches after a nuclear war, in charge of a withered State sure to become a wildly prosperous unregulated utopia. It seems a fatuous dream of course, to anyone who has read even a little about the aftermath of the 1918 revolution, but if you've read this far I shouldn't have to point it out. Out of a power vacuum, power comes.

Packer quotes Max Weber, writing only only two years later with regard to “the ethic of responsibility” versus “the ethic of ultimate ends” and it seems that little has changed in the course of human events since then -- at least in American events. The distinction

"between those who act from a sense of practical consequence and those who act from higher conviction, regardless of consequences."

describes our current struggle; unser Kampf, if you will.

" These ethics are tragically opposed, but the true calling of politics requires a union of the two."

Is there any doubt about into which group the "tax cuts and deregulation produce prosperity" and "the government is always the problem" people fall? Discussion of practical consequences can't be heard through the roar.

Such a political union is less foreseeable I think, than at any time in American History that I can call to mind and a complete rupture or a complete capitulation of the "ultimate responsibility" forces to the anarchists and nihilists may be the only possible outcome. Ex nihilo, nehil fit: out of nothing, nothing comes, no longer is supported by science, but in the world of governments and power and people, things are different -- and après ça, le déluge, of course.

The Debt Ceiling, Debt, and America's Political Hide: the Consequences of Willful Imbecility

Beaucoup ink has been expended on the economic consequences of a U.S. debt default, should that happen, but not much has been said about its political consequences. It seems to me that regarding the economic consequences, the central one is the partial loss of national autonomy that would stem from a failure to agree to keep paying our debts. Even a dinosaur can see that while it's a bad affair to have to borrow money with which to pay back a little of the money you've already borrowed, if you suddenly decide not to make the minimum payment on your credit card, so to speak, you end up ceding a lot of decision-making power to the large entity or entities who have been extending you what amount to loans on a monthly basis. But I guess the tea-timers in Congress don't know that…. It's just one of the many things they don't know.

Still, I'm focusing here on the political inferences that might be made by the powerful in this country and abroad. Wouldn't the lesson be something like, "Americans can't be trusted to elect a government that will manage their affairs competently, so their form of government is doomed, probably sooner rather than later?" The other day I was listening to an interview with some Ivy-League economist professor, and he pointed out that at some point after any default (and only after), the president might end up having to invoke the 14th Amendment "to save the Republic." That language stuck with me: the professor is right in that nothing less than the Republic's viability could hang in the balance.

Can we continue to manage our own affairs, or are we so stupid that we intend to keep sending cartoon characters to the halls of congress to do our bidding for us, and do it unbelievably badly? How do you sustain a republic with a majority of dunces and a legislative branch that is a nearly perfect symbol of that majority? How do you sustain a republic if its economy goes up in smoke thanks to the willful imbecility of a major branch of its government?

I still think saner heads will prevail and a deal will be reached, but I'm not as sure of it as I used to be. I'm not entirely certain Mr. Boehner can keep his side of the aisle from committing economic treason, or suicide (or whatever you want to call a refusal to honor the nation's debts) and thereby provoking an economic meltdown and possibly a constitutional crisis when the president has to deal with it by fiat.

Finally, as for the general right-wing strategy for dealing with the fix in which we find ourselves – namely, a very expensive government combined with our blockheaded refusal to raise the necessary revenue to sustain it -- I can offer this by way of The Wisdom of the Jurassic (what little of it there is): a capitalist economy CANNOT shrink its way out of a severe economic situation. Capitalism is like a shark: it must keep moving or it dies. Cutting guv'mint spending to the bone is therefore not the right thing to do, and anybody who thinks otherwise is dumber than a pile of particularly dumb rocks. The only way we will move from red to black at some point is if the economy generates sufficient wealth combined with a fair tax code that allows us to collect enough to pay for what we want the government to do. It would help, of course, if we stopped collectively pretending we don't want the government to do anything.

West world

When Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, many of the ugliest Republicans told us that Democrats were "playing the race card" a mawkish cliché which means, I think, falsely accusing them of the racism they do really espouse. In other words, talking anal cysts like Limbaugh were having their pearls of wisdom denounced by the "politically correct" because you can't criticize a black man these days without being called a racist. It's a cheap dishonorable gambit, but like counterfeit money, it can be passed off on an uncritical populace.

An uncritical, astigmatic, angry and greedy American public seems to have had another bit of counterfeit money passed off it. Allen West, the Republican Congressman from the 22nd Congressional District right here in Florida, land of snakes, lizards, Teaturds, pollution and poisonous toads -- Allen West, one chromosome short of a tape-worm, says in his blog:

"I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool."

Well isn't that special? Indeed it's the one feature of that pretentious Club of Fools that keeps it in business: it allows the mentally under-endowed, cognitively incontinent circus clowns to challenge their betters and to assault us with ideas that don't hold water nearly as well as a worn out douche bag. The giggle gallery in the back of the class, mocking the teacher.

Indeed West, speaking from his teabag-buttressed platform of arrogated biological superiority seems to be of an intellect too limited to have noticed the irony of a black man appealing to the snobbery of the uneducated, ill-informed, probably stupid and definitely angry whites, and offering soothing delusions of genetic superiority in a grotesque parody of white supremacists from Montgomery to Munich. But then, when has any American been too stupid and dishonest to be someone's hero?

There is indeed a tide in the affairs of men and there is an armada of those now afloat on that full sea of hate, not only using it for their own purposes but seeking to make it rise further until it drowns the land. Allen West is such a man, a man whom under ordinary circumstances would be a nobody, a flyblown bit of flotsam in a stagnant pool; but because of this tidal wave of fury, he can pretend to be a battleship and his flatus a volley of cannon. He can twist, misuse, misquote and invent, he can put on the white-face and wear a red tie, He can grin like Uncle Tom and mock like a monkey, but while honesty is within reach of all, what he pretends to is not.

Women from Planned Parenthood and the activist group Code Pink "have been neutering American men" he says and making them weak. West tells us this with his genetically based intellect still unaware of Dr. Strangelove and bodily fluids. Perhaps he himself is having problems with his manhood and this talk of virility and gene pools tells a cover story. Perhaps his politics serve as verbal Viagra for the intellectually impotent Representative. But I don't need to postulate such questions, the doctored Obama bumper sticker with the hammer and sickle tell us the whole, sick, sad, disgusting tale. Allan West is a whore. Allen West is Count Dracula's rat-eating Renfield, Allan West is a liar. Allen West, and for reasons probably too disgusting to contemplate, is trying to ruin everything good about the United States of America. So what do I do when I see that sticker? You don't want to find out.

The president, despite all appearances and lack of opposition to corporate abuse and capitalist excess is a "low-level socialist agitator" reciting "Marxist demagogic rhetoric." Is West describing himself again, or is he just grabbing bits from the instruction manual like a tent-meeting preacher with his mouth full of Jesus and a mind full of money? Obama is a Communist to the extent that John D. Rockefeller was a Communist and Bernie Madoff was a capitalist.

No, this high water mark of anti-government anger that produces foul and foetid things like Allen West and the Tea Party has little to do with genetics and everything to do with our national ignorance and our manufactured delusions; both fed and cultivated by the people who reap benefits in their billions and trillions by subverting the values of civilization and setting the dogs on the ever expanding masses. It's an old story, but in our new version, not all the dogs have four legs.

Pledge Scams as Ambush Politics (And why the No Tax Pledge Violates the U.S. Constitution)

Two pledge scams have been in the news lately: The so-called Family Pledge (covered by Nameless Cynic in this post, The American Taliban) and Grover Norquist’s so-called No Tax Pledge. Although seemingly unrelated, these pledges share at least one trait in common: To bully public officials and hold them hostage. More to the point, pledge scams are a form of ambush politics designed to preclude any reasonable debate on any subject by coercing compliance without forethought as to implications, impacts, or alternative solutions.

The No-Tax Pledge represents a case in point. As a Damocles sword wielded by nihilists over the heads of GOP chumps, it is the singular cause of gridlock in the current debt default debate. Here is what a debt default will mean:

• A downgrade in the credit worthiness of the nation;
• Interest rate increases on home mortgages, auto loans, student loans, and credit cards;
• Worldwide turmoil in bond and equity markets;
• Steep losses in the value of homes and retirement accounts;
• Interruptions in Medicare, Social Security and VA disbursements;
• And a crippling double-dip recession.

In other words, it is not just GOP stooges who are being held hostage; it is the American economy and We, The People … all on account of an anti-tax lunatic fringe wielding The Pledge to play brinksmanship at our expense.  When these GOP stooges took their oaths of office, they also pledged to uphold the U.S. Constitution, which requires them among other things to honor the nation's debts. Does this mean Grover Norquist holds more authority than the U.S. Constitution?  In allowing themselves to be suckered, the GOP have turned themselves into fools as well as hypocrites.  And they have no one else to blame but themselves!

It reminds me of a nursery rhyme I once read to my kids …

Jesus Christ!

A couple in Anderson County, SC has decided that Jesus decided to appear to them on a receipt from Walmart.

Jacob Simmons and his fiancee, Gentry Lee Sutherland, said they bought some pictures from Walmart on Sunday, June 12.

The following Wednesday, the couple had just come home from a church service when Simmons spotted the receipt on the floor of Sutherland's apartment. He says the receipt had changed. "I was leaving the kitchen and I just looked on the floor, and it was like it was looking at me," Simmons said.

It's just like in Scripture - "...and on the third day, he arose again, and ascended into Commerce..."



Just to be fair, let's leave aside uncomfortable questions like "could they find a more redneck religious icon than a Walmart receipt?" and move on to the more interesting questions. Like "Why did Jesus choose to appear there?"

Why would Jesus, much like an anal-probing alien, choose to appear in South Carolina, the colostomy bag of America?

Could it be because Simmons and Sutherland are an unmarried couple cohabitating in a single apartment, and Jesus wanted them to know that they're going to hell?

Was He just trying to pass along the message "Yo, hick! Can you clean this pigsty? I've been laying here for three days!"

Perhaps it was a marketing ploy by Walmart: "I'd come back from the dead for savings like these! Even if they are destroying the economy!" (And really, this is sheer genius as advertising goes: it's a ploy that will go over big in the Bible Belt.)

But to be honest, I think that Mr Simmons has misidentified his picture. Because really, it looks more like Charles Manson to me.



But I'm pretty sure that this miraculous appearance doesn't mean "Go start killing everybody in the neighborhood (or as they call it in South Carolina, "urban beautification"). Jesus has been aggressively marketing Himself of late, appearing on telephone poles, rocking chairs, and even some crackhead's cell phone.

I'd say that for answers, we should turn, as we always do, to that other bearded guy in robes.

Dawn patrol

The last time I watched the movie Spirit of St Louis, about Charles Lindbergh's 1927 flight across the Atlantic, I wondered what he would have done if someone had told him: "hey wait, in a few years you'll be able to do this in a few hours while drinking champagne and watching this movie. That's not how the human ego operates however. We take huge risks to be the first. Risks that would be far, far smaller if we waited a while for technology to catch up.

Of course if it weren't for the Cold War we might never have gone to the moon or built a space station or have our hopes for a verdant Mars dashed in the 1960's and 70's. Sometimes you are better off taking the risk, spending the money; but is that an argument for not moving on with the times?

While the press and much of the public is lamenting the end of the seriously flawed shuttle program, the real science of space exploration is continuing to produce astounding advances that dwarf the advancements to knowledge produced by our manned program. With the rapid advance of semi-autonomous robotics and miniaturization, it's foreseeable that the huge risk and titanic expense of sending people around the solar system and returning them alive and sane may be less and less worthwhile.

What have we learned from the shuttle experience? That space travel is still very risky, still vastly more expensive and difficult than we imagine when we design these things. Expensive enough that we will always make serious compromises in design that eventually make things even more expensive when we have to work around them. The shuttle is a textbook lesson in the perils of design by committee and politicians. It's catastrophes result directly from design decisions driven by economy.

If we are to continue the Space Station project for a while, perhaps there will be sufficient motivation to develop a smaller, lighter, truly reusable, economically sound and more modern supply vehicle, but the Space Station, if it has any justification, is all about practice in sending people to places to do what robots will probably be able to do much better before we get there.

Yes, perhaps we'll be able to support some sort of human existence on Mars for a period of time and perhaps construct a moon base that could, for a time, house humans, but it wouldn't be much of a life and it certainly shouldn't be called a "colony" in the way European settlements in the Americas were colonies. We still lack the money and the technology as well as a reason to develop them. In that respect science fiction tends to be a somewhat cloudy fun-house mirror of the past more than a window into the future.

Would we ever send; would we ever expend the huge resources to send men and women to Vesta, or Ceres much less to the vicinity of the outer planets with their monstrous radiation belts and no resources -- a journey that would force the new Conquistadors to live in conditions we now reserve for pickled herring -- and keep them in constant danger and deprivation for years? No, but we can send and have sent patient, unemotional and replaceable robots whose capabilities are expanding as fast as the universe itself. Would we spend trillions and ask a crew to take a decades long trip in a stinking tin can without a shower, drinking recycled urine and eating horrible food just to orbit Pluto? Will we ever travel to the nearest star? I doubt it, but the technology to send an unmanned vehicle is at least a real possibility, even if we won't live to see the pictures.

Robots can be sent in small vehicles; can be small vehicles, powered by small efficient ion motors and won't suffer from emotional problems or long for the cool, green hills of home. A cheap cell phone now has more computing power than existed anywhere when we first walked on the moon and high resolution video cameras are smaller than the human eye. (remember when color TV cameras were the size and weight of refrigerators and required a two man crew?) The rate of change is accelerating. Think of what we'll be able to do in the 20 or 30 years it would take to build manned rockets and ancillary equipment for a very risky Mars mission.

The shuttle was a 1970's design loaded with so much design compromise that it was obsolete before it got off the ground. Robotic missions on the other hand can go from the drawing board to landing on Jovian moons in fairly short order. The real science is done on places that would incinerate, irradiate, freeze and squash an astronaut, even if he survived the mind numbing confinement and squalor needed to get there and back.

Not so with the Dawn mission now, as of yesterday, in orbit around the asteroid Vesta; an object so small and distant that even the Hubble telescope can't see anything but a featureless smear. Expect a flood of hi-res images in the next few weeks. In time it will move on to Dwarf Planet Ceres and surely gain some insight into the formation of planetary systems. That may be less a thing of dreams than small boys and Sci-Fi fans like to imagine but much more of a thing of science. We've already seen the sunset on Mars and watched dust devils cross the endless desert. We've heard the wind blow on Titan and seen its methane rivers and lakes and there's more to come as the technology improves.

It's impossible to do more than guess, but I'm guessing that long before we discover bug-eyed monsters on alien worlds, we'll be building our own in Pasadena and sending them there. You and I can see the dawn rise on worlds more alien than we can imagine and we can do it poolside with a glass of lemonade.

Breaking News: The Huckster Gets Hacked by None Other Than ...

Tone Deaficit

By Octopus

First, let’s dispense with an outrageous lie. The current debt under discussion is REPUBLICAN DEBT authorized by Congress and signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The debt in question covers bills that have come due … from two unfunded wars, from unfunded tax cuts and tax loopholes that have benefited the wealthy and ravaged the middle class, from gross mismanagement of the nation’s economy under Republican supply side bullshit.

Over two years ago, I tried to make a point under this post, Lets Go Viral, dated April 17, 2009. I find this date especially curious. On April 17, 2009, President Obama was a newly elected president scarcely 3 months in office. From the beginning, as you can see from my original post, the Tea Thug Party was already organized and marching to the orders of Rush Limbaugh who said, “I hope he fails” – uttered on January 16, 2009 - four days BEFORE President Obama took the oath of office.

My point: Even from the beginning, the Republicans were hell-bent on sabotaging the Obama presidency. For the two years and three months that have elapsed since my original post, Obama has been battered and abused with non-stop vitriol, defamation, outright racism, and endless filibusters from far right wing Republicans (who have transformed their party into a proto-fascist movement that places political ambition above the national interest).

Two years and three months ago, the national debt stood at eleven trillion dollars, nine trillion of which was amassed under Republican administrations – representing 82% of total debt. As of this month, July 14, 2011, the national debt stands at fourteen trillion dollars, of which nine trillion was amassed under Republican administrations – representing 64% of total debt. Yet, the Republicans continue to repeat the same dishonest trope about tax-and-spend liberals. Despite the $750 Billion TARP bailout started under Bush, and the $730 Billion economic stimulus bill to prevent economic collapse, Republicans remain the all-time champions of deficit spending:

64% OF OUR NATIONAL DEBT

WAS SPENT BY REPUBLICANS

(AS OF BASTILLE DAY 2011)

Lets dispense with outrageous lie number two: Last night on MSNBC news, Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, said rich people deserve to have tax breaks because it is rich people who create jobs.

Total bullshit. Rich people do not create jobs, never have and never will. Producers will hire only when there is demand for their goods and services. No consumer spending means no business confidence means no job growth. It is as simple as that, unless you are Judson Phillips, a self-styled spokesperson for corporate proto-fascists. When you impoverish the poor and the middle class, you have choked the engine that drives business expansion.  Consumers create jobs when they create demand for goods and services, always have and always will.

Last year, Tea Thug Republicans ran on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs. Since the new legislative session in January, Democrats have sponsored seven jobs bills, as follows (source):

• A bill to end government contracts that reward corporations for shipping American jobs overseas.
• The Build America Bonds Act – a bill that leverages public dollars to strengthen private sector investment in schools, hospitals, and transit projects.
• The American Jobs Matter Act – a bill that would give preference in federal contracts to U.S. manufacturers that create jobs at home.
• The National Manufacturing Strategy Act, which calls on the President to develop plans and policies to help American manufacturers compete and grow in the global trading environment.
• The Advanced Vehicle Manufacturing Technology Act – a research and investment bill to help ensure that the cars of the future are built in America.
• The Currency Reform Fair Trade Act - provides our government with tools to address unfair currency manipulation. According to estimates, the bill would have created over 1 million manufacturing jobs by leveling the international playing field for American workers and companies.
• A bill to promote jobs and innovation at home by offering incentives to patent holders who pledge to develop and manufacture innovative new products in the United States.

All of the aforementioned bills were voted down by Republicans. How many job creation bills have the Republican introduced since January? NONE, NADA, ZIP.   Their idea of shrinking the deficit is sabotaging the country.  For what?  Their stinking political ambition!

Pants on fire

“The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

-Article III of the US Constitution-

“There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution"

-Newt Gingrich-

Really, Newt? Are you really a history professor? Do you really think we're that stupid?

It's getting hard to tolerate the stench coming out of the pre-caucus Republican cesspool; from Presidential candidates getting government funds -- our tax dollars -- to teach people how to pray away the gay and advocating the use of Federal might to stamp out all forms of pornography frowned on by their frowning religion and to legislate and limit and punish our personal relationships -- while griping about too much government interference and too much spending and too much social engineering. It's getting damned hard to tolerate morally, mentally and ethically bankrupt creeps like Newt Gingrich, who is quite happy to feed the malignant idiocy now consuming the remnants of our Republic by telling us that our constitution does not "mention" much less provide for a supreme court, Article III of the Constitution notwithstanding.

"We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.”

lies the moral multimillionaire elitist with the million dollar line of credit at the jewelry store and a string of illicit mistresses and abused ex-wives. That's profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong and profoundly Republican. But of course anyone who thinks the highest court is an extra-legal ad hoc assembly of five self-appointed members foisted on the public by "elitists" and with no constitutional authority can hardly be considered an elitist of any kind unless there's a ranking of candidates according to their ignorance and mendacity and greed. Perhaps Newt just forgot that the Supreme Court Justices are approved by Congress or perhaps he's just a lying tub of septic scum who thinks he's entitled by birth and party affiliation to feast on the corpse of America.

You can fool some of the people all of the time: you can fool a lot of them in fact. They're called Republicans. They're called perverts, they're called liars, thieves, embezzlers and saboteurs.

Quick thought on women in elevators

Now, if you don't occasionally wander through the godless corners of the internet, you might have no idea, but a vlogger named Skepchick posted a video where (right about the 4:30 mark, if you're in a hurry), she mentions an encounter she had.

Basically, she'd given a talk explaining that when men sexualize her, it creeps her out. So, when a guy (later established to have been present at that talk) followed her onto an elevator and asked her up to his room, she was uncomfortable.

And that blew up, with a lot of people trying to claim that she was calling all men rapists, and women should just chill out, and on and on. Because... well, because men are dicks, mostly. I should know - I happen to be one myself. Some of us repress that side of our personalities, but far too many don't.

(In the midst of all this exaggeration, a world-famous atheist tried to poo-poo the whole thing, essentially saying that women in Muslim countries have it far worse, so women in America should stop complaining. You know, something like claiming that people are blown up in Jerusalem a lot, so if you get knifed in Boston, just walk it off and quit whining.)

Now, I just have one thing to say about this (of course, I'm going to take way too long saying it, but that's just me). And, actually, it breaks into two parts.

First, that's not what she said!! Christ, the video is right up above here, and I told you where to look! Go watch the fucking thing!

* ahem *

But (he continues in a calmer voice), since you brought it up, yes, women do, in fact, get raped in elevators. In fact, one guy in New York enjoyed it so much that he went out and tried it again. Which inspired copycats.

(Pro-tip: when googling for examples of "elevator rape," be sure that SafeSearch is on. That also happens to be a twisted fantasy for some guys. Which should actually tell you something.)

Also, two fairly common justifications for this dickish attitude on the part of guys:

1. Well, elevator rape isn't very common!
Yeah, asshole. Neither is homosexual rape. Do you want to be the lucky one?

2. It's stupid to worry, because elevators have security cameras!
OK, rich boy. First, no, many of them don't - cameras are expensive. Second, many of the places that have cameras don't have them monitored in real time - that's also expensive. And third, even where the camera has been installed (and here's a dirty little secret of the security business for you), they often don't work. It's just that the people in charge don't want you to know that: they're hoping for a placebo effect on crime.

So, fuck you very much, you fat, privileged, self-important pricks. Women get raped every day. And sometimes it happens in elevators.

I hope that nobody you care about becomes a statistic.

Dear Speaker Boehner

John Boehner & Eric Cantor

Imagine if Speaker of the House John Boehner received millions of emails and phone calls telling him that we're mad as hell and demand that he and the Republican party cease and desist from its efforts to sacrifice our children, the elderly, low wealth, and working class families on the altar of tax cuts for those most capable of paying taxes. Stop imagining and contact Boehner's office, (202) 225-0600, shut down his phone lines, and give McConnell a call too, (202) 224-2541. If you can't reach Boehner's office by phone, send him an email. You don't have to be in Boehner's Ohio district, you may contact him in his capacity as Speaker of the House using this link. 

Below is my email to Boehner that I sent today.

Speaker Boehner,
I've voted in every election since I became eligible to vote, that's over 35 years ago. Members of the U.S. Congress do not represent only their districts but the well being of the entire country. As Speaker of the House, you are responsible to all of us; the people are the government.

I am dismayed at the continual efforts of your party to support tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% in this country. I am insulted that your party continues to try and persuade the voters that this is in their best interests. The theory of trickle-down economics has not worked in spite of efforts to insist that it will benefit the people of this country. The haves continue to gain more and the have-nots continue to have less. This policy has not been shown to create more jobs.

Our country is in debt and the revenues from letting the tax breaks for the wealthy expire would add considerable monies to our coffers. The justifications offered for not allowing the tax breaks to expire are ludicrous. The loopholes that allow major corporations to avoid paying taxes are ludicrous. Your party's refusal to listen to the will of the people is ludicrous.

Your party's position is that we have a spending problem and not a revenue problem. This is beyond ludicrous. We have a deficit problem. When your expenditures exceed your revenues, it is certainly appropriate to make cuts where possible but it is also prudent to engage in methods to secure additional revenues. To put it simply, if my expenditures exceed my budget, I cut back on spending. However, I don't also refuse to take steps to increase my income.

I can't say that I will no longer vote for your party; I never have and most likely never will. I will say that the destruction that you sow if you continue with this shortsighted policy will affect generations to come, and you and your party will earn the dubious distinction of having sunk the American economy.

Speaker Boehner, work with the President, not against him.

It's time to tell these elected officials that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more. Give the President your support. He cannot stop the Republicans simply because he says so. He's the President, not a dictator. To those of you still insisting that he caved on the extension of the tax rates, get off that ride. He did not have the votes to end the tax breaks for the wealthy. If he had vetoed the bill that extended those cuts, his veto would have been overridden. Yes the Democrats were in control but all Democrats were not loyal. Instead of taking a symbolic stand that would have resulted in failure any way, the President used it as an opportunity to ensure the continuation of elements of the tax code such as the earned income tax credit (EITC) that directly benefit low wealth families.

If you want to do something now, if you want to fight the good fight, then make Congress hear that we will not accept the extension of the tax cuts for the wealthy. Making a few phone calls and/or writing an email will take you all of 15 to 20 minutes. Stop talking and start doing. I can't guarantee success but if we all do nothing, I can guarantee failure.

Find and contact your senators. 

Find and contact your representatives.

Have I just seen the end of America?

Getting ready to see the last space shuttle launch event must be lot like what a pregnant woman feels going into labour; a lot of agony for a few seconds of fun. And fun it was, including the agony, I guess.

For our part going to see the last shuttle launch was a bit of a whim. Our oldest boy loves astronomy and all things space-related, so that was enough of an excuse. So we packed up into the van for the 30-plus-hour drive to Cape Canaveral.

Along the way we got to see what’s left of America after the great financial crash of 2008. The all-night radio was full of news on the jobless rate in the U.S., now at something like 9.1 percent, and the stalled growth in hiring, sputtering along at only 18,000 new jobs last month. The eeriest part of this was the deserted freeways in northern New England on July 4th. Obviously, vacationers were not travelling in droves to spend their money. When we stopped in Massachusetts at a pretty—and normally very busy—historic inn it wasn’t even half full.

For the rest of the story read on...

Crocodile tears

Most bad drivers, like the American public in general have no concept of momentum or kinetic energy. Americans are the sort of people who will complain they're still falling after the parachute opens. Americans were the people who lapped up Fox News' "Democrats are pessimists trying to tear down the economy which is strong, strong, strong" and the Administration's "Debt doesn't matter" philosophy and are still the people who remain steadfastly unaware that the Republicans raised the Debt ceiling 7 times in the 8 years they held the White House and asked for a bigger bailout with no accountability or accounting. They're just shocked, shocked, shocked to see what that farleftliberalcommie president is doing and just look at the tears in Boehner's eyes.

Listening to Tim Geithner trying to be re-assuring on Meet the Press this morning didn't do much to dispel the idea that Republicans want nothing more than to allow default so as to give the illusion of Democratic guilt to their "look what Obama did" strategy. If he's right that the government will still pay it's bills after August 2nd, there will still be serious repercussions for all of us. If Geithner is right that a larger catastrophe than the Great Depression has been diverted it makes little impression on those who don't remember what caused the 1930's to be what they were and what brought about the rebound. They don't remember that every experiment in drastic upper bracket cuts has has the same negative result, that an extra few percent on the top bracket puts more back into the economy than cuts do or remember that paying off the debt on WWII brought steady expansion and job growth and infrastructure improvement. The kids in the back seat will continue to bitch until the money they imagined they had five years ago materializes again.

No, it's burn baby burn and the new Utopia will rise from the ashes and far better to let people who need Social Security and Medicare to stay alive die and reduce the surplus population than for hedge fund tycoons to pay an extra couple of grand more and send an extra couple of grand less to to offshore tax havens. If Medicare is indeed bankrupting us, it's by Republican design. If the debt is expanding, it's part of their plan to pay it off by reducing taxes and eliminating things they have opposed for 75 years on "moral" grounds. They look on economic tragedy as an opportunity and are probably quite aware at the Boehner and Koch Brothers and Murdoch level, that the 'lower the income to make the debt go away' strategy will, like pulling back on the stick and cutting the throttle, send us spinning downward instead of climbing. It's what they want.

I would be tempted to give a shit once again if there were any significant number of people who recognized that funny feeling in the rectum for what it is and weren't too easily seduced by the feeling of importance one gets by joining the Low-Brow Brotherhood of Trolls and Tea Smokers Marching Band, but there aren't enough and and no, I'm not tempted.

The American Taliban

Well, Rick Santorum has joined Michele Bachmann in signing the Family Leader pledge, also known as

THE MARRIAGE VOW
A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY

As far as I can tell, that small "i" in the word family is supposed to denote humility or some crap. It's also the only sign of humility on the whole damned Family Leader website (other than repeated uses of the words "humble" and "humility," of course). They're associated with both "Focus on the Family" and the "Family Research Council," two of the most strident right-wing Christian conservative groups out there.

The president of Family Leader is Bob Vander Plaats, and he's a special breed of crazy. He's tried to explain in the past that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to the suspension of the Constitution, the removal of property rights for individuals, and the destruction of the Second Amendment. (Yes, I'm serious about that.) His former campaign manager describes him as "obsessed with the gay-marriage issue."

Since most of the items on the Family Leader's little list have been staple Republican issues for years, I'm not entirely clear why so many of the other front-runners in the 2012 GOP Goat Rodeo are backing slowly away from it. Except that maybe, when you put it all in one place like this, it becomes a little more distasteful to the average American.

Because, really, what this "vow" wants is to put the Christian Taliban in place in America.

There have been a number of objections to parts of this pledge. For example, the first bullet point listed during the preamble to this steaming pile of piety is fascinating.

• Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

As Cheryl Contee put it at Jack & Jill Politics:

Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive. I mean, putting aside the statistics on this, which are likely off-base, I could not be more angry. When will Republicans inquire with (sic) actual Black people whether or not we’re ok with invoking slavery to score cheap political points?

But let's take a look at the actual "Candidate Vow" that Bachmann and Santorum signed on to support, shall we?

Personal fidelity to my spouse.

So, we're not likely to see this supported by Newt Gingrich, are we? Or, for that matter, most Republicans. Somewhere between John McCain's divorces and John Boehner's rumored affairs, I don't see the GOP adopting this as a plank, really.

Respect for the marital bonds of others.

Unless you're gay-married. Because that's just icky.

Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.

See, now, there's a tricky issue, right there. Because a "faithful constitutionalist" wouldn't have allowed any Constitutional Amendments, would he? So that whole "Bill of Rights" thing? Yeah, that's out the window. We wouldn't have had to ban Prohibition, but, then again, we wouldn't have had Prohibition in the first place, so I guess there's that.

Oh, and blacks would only be three-fifths of a person. You know, it's the little issues like these that make me wonder about "constitutional originalists."

Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.

Yup, there's that gay marriage thing again.

Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.

Wow. Coming from people who refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution and global warming, that's almost humorous. But what the hell does it really mean? "Recognition of the evidence?" Doesn't really say anything, except "yeah, I guess that's right..."

Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended "second chance" or "cooling-off" periods for those seeking a "quickie divorce."

"uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy"? Wow, that would be a fascinating list. Of course, since you've already accepted their bullshit studies in the previous paragraph, I guess the list of what you have to support has probably already been made.

Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.

That's funny. You'd think that the part of DOMA that keeps states from having to accept gay marriages from other states would bother those "constitutional originalists," wouldn't it? You know, that whole Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1, US Constitution), where it says that "acts, records and judicial proceedings (from each state) shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions" as they do in the original state.

Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.

See? Once again, "constitutional originalists" who want to amend the fucking Constitution.

Logic. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

You know, right at first glance, that looks like a really good part of this whole vow. It's a list of stuff everybody should be against, right?

Well, look closer. Once you get past the "human trafficking" and "sexual slavery," you'll notice that "abortion" is right there next to "infanticide," you'll note that they're not only trying to ban prostitution, but pornography. (We'll be dealing, of course, with their definition of pornography.) And can you please explain what they mean by "seduction into promiscuity" or "other types of coercion or stolen innocence?"

I mean, come on! Do you know how many things have been said to lead to promiscuity? Music of just about every kind, whether rock, rap or pop - go back far enough, even jazz has been accused of being "devil music." The media in general might be at fault. Even dancing at all is immoral. (You didn't think that the screenwriter for Footloose - Dean Pitchford, if you're curious - got the idea out of nowhere, did you?)

It isn't just sexy clothing that lead our children away from the Paths of Righteousness, it might even be something as simple as pants.

The list is endless. So how far do you think these people will want to press the issue?

Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.

The gays again. This time in our military. (Maybe Vander Plaats really is obsessed with homosexuality. Methinks he doth protest too much...)

And incidentally, the womenfolk aren't strong enough to be in the military! They need to be back home pumping out babies!

Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.

Um... does that include the stuff in the Bible, too? Because I might be willing to support this if it did.

Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.

You know, that doesn't necessarily sound all that scary, because many of you might not be familiar with the Quiverfull movement. Yeah, they're out there.

Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA's $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.

Except for those parts of the government that do the stuff we want, and the new parts to support the requirements of this vow right here...

Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy.

Free speech, but only for our side. You have to admire that one.

OK, so maybe I do see why the other GOP candidates aren't signing on to this.
_____________

Update (7/11/11): Although the link I used shows the original, it seems that FAMiLY LEADER has removed the only-offensive-if-you-know-a-black-person bullet point about slavery. And seriously, you can't blame them - there can't be more than 12 black people in Iowa, can there? And you can't expect Bob Vander Plaats to know all of them, can you?