Droning on and on

I usually describe myself, when it comes up, as a born-again liberal: I was one of Rush Limbaugh's original audience, back when he started out on KFBK out of Sacramento.

The Trophy Wife spent the first years of our marriage dragging me out of Neanderthal status and up to a level where I wasn't flinging poo and grunting, and I was probably almost there, when George Bush sent me to Iraq. I got back, and started noting the discrepancies: the "weapons of mass destruction," the central argument in favor of invading Iraq, not only didn't exist, but the evidence that they did was openly fabricated.

Yes, to be honest, Iraq had once had chemical weapons which they'd used on their own people. We knew that, because we sold it to them.



Saddam and his government were cooperating with the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, when Bush finally pulled out the inspectors and invaded anyway.

As I learned more and more, I reached a point in 2004 when my wife came home to find me in tears. It had finally come home to me that George Bush had made us a rogue nation, and we'd invaded another country just because we wanted something from them. Exactly as Saddam had in the first Gulf War. (Admittedly, the tears might have been helped along by the lingering remains of the weakest case of PTSD on record, but there it is.)

But overall, I'll admit publicly to being what Stephanie Miller calls a "happy-clappy liberal." I think Obama has done great things, despite a Congress full of Republicans who would rather watch the country burn than let our first black president succeed.

I like that he dismantled "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I had a number of good friends in the military who happened to be gay, and their life was not a happy one.

I like that he managed to get health-care reform started, so that poor people don't have to die in pain. Despite what Fox "News" wants you to believe, Obama has managed to do a lot of very important things in the face of uninterrupted Republican obstruction.

I've got to say, though, that of all the policies Obama's put in place, the one I disagree with the most is the badly-targeted killing of civilians using unmanned drones. It reeks of Orwellian CIA assassinations: the actions of a corrupt dictator, killing his enemies with impunity.

I'm also a realist. I understand why it's being done. We do have enemies around the world (moreso since we burned down big chunks of the Middle East), and they would like nothing more than to score a symbolic victory by killing a good-sized group of Americans. But I also believe in these weird foreign concepts like habeas corpus, and "innocent until proven guilty."

I think that murder is a bad thing. So the whole subject leaves me a little torn.

In the end, though, I see nothing good about drone strikes. Are you aware that only one out of every fifty people killed by drones have been terrorists? Instead, we're killing wedding guests, innocent schoolchildren, people attending funerals, or even rescue workers:

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

I understand the popularity of the program: no US forces are in any danger of being harmed. But somewhere along the line, we seem to have lost sight of the bigger picture: we're murdering innocent people.

But Democrats don't want to say bad things about Obama, and this program is the only thing Obama does that the GOP actually supports. So nothing gets done.

Weirdly enough, American bigotry is suddenly showing itself to have a stronger moral base than the American government. As long as the deaths were just foreigners and Muslims, nobody cared. But when word got out that the US government was also killing Americans, the possible backlash might just cause the government to rethink their policy.

(The idiot end of the political spectrum, of course, feels an obligation to overreact to this, as it does to everything that the Kenyan usurper does: they're already shrieking about "Drone strikes on American soil!!"

To be honest, if it makes the US rethink its drone program, I don't mind the overreaction this time.

Queen Michelle

Almost within hours after Sarah Palin became the Republican VP candidate, Fox news began a preemptive assault on critics, falsely alleging ( it had appeared in the Washington Post as a joke) that planeloads of lawyers had already arrived in Wasilla to "dig up dirt" about her family and that the widespread and stunned reaction to selecting a person of such mediocre and unhinged mind was some kind of smokescreen covering up the true objective of defaming her daughter.

So why am I bringing up such old news? It's possible that I may attract more viral e-mails than anyone else, but I doubt it and in fact you may also have seen the one titled Queen Michelle in your own mailbox recently.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the theatrical display of shock and offense certainly is a one way thing, because I'm hearing none of it on the subject of Republicans openly calling for the murder of Mrs. Obama and her "Stupid children." I am hearing crap about how Democrats are playing some kind of "race card" to defend against valid criticism, but incitement to riot, incitement to murder and deadly threats against a President are a felony, not a playing card. Where's the protest from Republicans?

Our former First Lady was treated with a great deal of respect and bipartisan praise. Very little was made of her history or background or of having been the first and only First Lady to have killed someone. Nothing whatever was made of her large staff and payroll.

It's true that Michelle's is not an elected office but there are traditional duties that have long required the services of people from hairdressers to personal secretaries and assistants. Nobody worries much about it since in a great many instances she has to represent the United States here and abroad.

So deep is the desperation of the lunatic fringe that now makes up most of the Republican party that all prior restraints have evaporated in the lust to defame, smear, degrade, insult, intimidate, threaten and humiliate president Obama's family, and the giggling cowards can't turn out the propaganda fast enough.

Queen Michelle is the title, and it begins:

"First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

July 7, 2009 - Dr. Paul L. Williams"

There is of course, a real Dr. Williams, who writes books about how Islam is plotting to kill us all and about the need for another Crusade and who, like Joe McCarthy uses accusations of harboring Islamic terrorists and nuclear attack plots to throw his weight and his books around.

I don't know that Dr. Paul L. Williams wrote this, but I doubt that the perpetrator of this would ever identify himself or the PAC that employs him. The e-mail goes on to list 22 ( 20 or 26 in some versions) White House staff that Mrs. Obama "employs" at our expense while others of us poor Liberal dominated serfs have to stock shelves at Wal-Mart. Nothing is said about the people who own Wal-Mart or their lifestlye or whether we elected them. Indeed nothing is said of the dodgy Doctor either.

It portrays her as someone much like Marie Antoinette, haughty and disdainful of lesser people, which of course is a confection more airy than the cake Marie legendarily Suggested the French poor should eat.

She has no official duties, it's misleadingly stressed, although it seems that every First Lady since and including Martha Washington has indeed served in many capacities as a diplomat at large, good will ambassador and hostess. Laura Bush was widely praised in that role.

What's not pointed out is that her budget and number of "attendants" is just about the same as Laura Bush had. Nobody called her Queen Laura or threatened to kill her and her children. Only the mind of a Republican could dream up such such ugliness and dare to disseminate it -- and don't expect them to take responsibility or apologize. The best we can hope for is some rhetoric about "Liberals" "whining" about Bush and some foul, rancid, reeking attempt to equate and justify their disgusting behavior because after all "Liberals criticized Bush."

Don't believe it? I politely refuted the claims and replied. My answer from the person who sent my my copy was exactly that - seething fury about how I will

"just have to get used to it and suck it up because you damn communist bastards have been preaching hate for years."

These are your "conservative" values, your family values. This is your party of morality and personal responsibility. Good, Christian folk from small towns in the heartland where all the good Christian values come from. What costume will they put on after someone finally acts out their Satanic passion play? I don't want to think about it. God damn them one and all.

RUSSIAN NEWSPAPER HARD HIT BY ASSASSINATIONS

Russia has devolved into one of the world's most dangerous nations for investigative journalism.  Many reporters have died, and there are no leads or prosecutions in any of the cases thus far. Here is a partial summary:

Yuri Shchekochikhin - died in July 2003.  Suspected cause of death: Ingestion of a radioactive substance.  As deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, Shchekochikhin was investigating corruption in Russia's FSB security service at the time of his death.

Paul Klebnikov - a U.S. citizen of Russian descent and editor of the Russian edition of Forbes magazine who was shot on a Moscow street in July 2004.

Anna Politkovskaya - shot dead as she entered her Moscow apartment in October 2006.

Ivan Safranov – fell to his death from his Moscow apartment building in March 2007. Although he had just returned from shopping with a bag of groceries in hand, Russian authorities ruled the death a suicide. He had been investigating sensitive arms sales days before his death.

Magomed Yevloyev - the owner of a Russian opposition Internet site was shot dead on August 31, 2008.

Stanislav Markelov - murdered on January 23, 2009, he was an investigative reporter with Novaya Gazeta.

Anastasia Baburova – an investigative reporter with Novaya Gazeta, she was murdered on January 23, 2009 alongside Stanislav Markelov.

This weekend, a crowd of protestors joined an estimated 250 mourners to commemorate the deaths of Marelov and Baburova.  Anti-war activist Anna Karetnikova, a friend of Anna Politkovskaya who was slain in 2006, blamed the double murders on orders from the Kremlin.

To date, four employees of Novaya Gazeta have been murdered: Shchekochikhin, Politkovskaya, Markelov, and Baburova.

Alexander Lebedev (a Russian billionaire and former KGB agent) and Mikhail Gorbachev (the last leader of the former Soviet Union) own a 49% stake in Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper hardest hit by these assassinations.  The employees own a 51% stake.  Lebedev writes a blog at alex-lebedev.livejournal.com.

Recently, Lebedev and Gorbachev joined forces to launch a new political party independent of the Kremlin. Called the Independent Democratic Party, it seeks legal and economic reform and the promotion of an independent media. Considering the Kremlin’s slide into oligarchy, Novaya Gazeta may represent the last outpost of free and independent journalism left in Russia.

In solidarity, I have added Novaya Gazeta (English version) to our list of news and information sources. According to the editors:

The killers have no fear because they know they will not be punished. But neither are their victims afraid, because when you defend others you cease to fear.