All truths await

All truths wait in all things

-Walt Whitman- 

It's been asserted that Nancy Hanks, Abraham Lincoln's mother was illegitimate and that President Lincoln himself was her illegitimate son.  History as is commonly taught to school children seems to have left the legitimacy claims behind to those who continue to impugn the man on the Dollar bill and continue to say the same sort of things about every enemy of injustice ever since.  Certainly those who continue to growl and grumble about the man who bent and broke rules to get the 13th amendment through Congress have much in common with Lincoln's mid 19th century detractors, Northern and Southern, and our current assailants of  nearly every Democratic president since FDR. It's tempting to believe that Americans of today, with their rabid and intransigent and often delusional views are something quite new, but Lincoln's campaign for re-election has far too much in common with Barack Obama's effort to make that idea stand on it's own.

He's a tyrant! he's the enemy of freedom! He's trashing the Constitution and our rights! -- are we talking about Lincoln, or Roosevelt. or Kennedy or Clinton?  All of them and more have faced such accusations.  Did Obama go on an "apology tour?"  Did Honest Abe openly endorse 'miscegenation' (a term that may have been coined by the Religious Right,) and were there articles and pamphlets describing a ball that never happened where 'colored belles'  danced with white men and containing fake pictures?  Yes there were!  just as Houston was flooded with wanted posters and other leaflets the day Kennedy was murdered.

 "At the very time shots were being fired at President Kennedy a right-wing protestor stood a few feet away, heckling JFK by comparing him to Neville Chamberlain"

Relates Donald E. Wilkes, Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law; ostensibly for such things as not forcing Communists to register with the government and for "turning the country over to the UN."  Heard it all before?  Of course we have and we've heard it ever since and from the same damned people in many cases.    "The American Fact Finding Committee" apparently actually the John Birch Society, printed one of those insidious, seditious calumnies. Fred C Koch, founder of Koch Industries ( who used to do business with the USSR) and founder of the John Birch Society and  father to the Koch Brothers bankrollers of the Tea Party now hounding Obama with the same slimy and false accusations.  Like Father, like sons. Like American Conservatism, like Treason.

Perhaps the "Modern Man" of the mid 19th century of whom Whitman sang isn't much different from the modern men and women who sit up nights fabricating stories about Barack Obama's ancestry and actions. 19th century calumnies about "Abraham Africanus I" and his fictitious dialogues with Satan smell as ugly as anything Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or the Koch boys have ever cooked up in their stew-pots. No, I'm afraid America's 'Conservatives,'  those people who will go to war to preserve the past and particularly a  fictitious past designed to cover up injustice and promote privilege, have been with us all along.

Did the infamous but recently recrudescent Joe McCarthy really say "show me a man who talks about the Constitution and I'll show you a communist?"  I don't know, but his 'Conservative' henchmen didn't think that was as anti-American or trashing the constitution or beyond the definition of free speech as reading Marx or having a certain political opinion or promoting civil rights -- and even, in the case of Lincoln: ending constitutional support for slavery.  The Gospel chewing Bible bullies, the feudal Barons of industry then and now only care about the constitution when someone tries to use it to preserve individual liberty, and so granting the same rights to Biblical pariahs as to others, is "trashing the constitution" when Obama  -- or Africanus II -- favors it.

All truth waits, but who cares to look when it's too likely to challenge our politics, our lies, our precious delusions, our profits, our power?

Be careful what you wish for

Well, the Republicans have really gone and done it this time. In frantically trying to find a replacement for the Kenyan Devil-baby Usurper currently ensconced in the White House (oh, how ironic that term is now!), they seem to have all-but-nominated someone who is exactly like Obama.

Or, to be more accurate, someone who is exactly like the Obama that they see in their feverish hallucinations of a Destroyed America.

And I'm not talking about the fact that Mitt passed a healthcare plan in Massachusetts that Obamacare was modeled after. That would be too easy.

The frothing paste-eaters on the right like to claim, for example, that Barack and Michelle Obama are arrogant. (Google arrogant Obama - go ahead. I can wait.)

Of course, in this case, "arrogant" translates to "they're black and aren't ashamed of it!" So perhaps, by their extremely low standards, it's true.

Mittens and his wife Rafalka Ann actually fit the dictionary definition of the word "arrogant," rather than some racist dog-whistle. Mitt doesn't just fail to understand how ordinary people live, act and react, he just doesn't care.

And let's be honest. You don't get much more arrogant than referring to the common rabble as "you people."

Every time Obama visits another country or talks with a foreign leader, the right wing treats us to a strange, twisted version of reality, where Obama has been accused of going on an "apology tour" or "bowing to foreign dictators."

So, enter Mittens and His Worldwide Embarrassment Tour. What do we get?

Well, he went to England, where one of his manservants made a blatantly racist remark before he could be taken out back and strangled. Then Romney himself insulted the British people for being unprepared for the Olympics, leading, eventually, to a worldwide tour of fuckups and stumbles.


(I apologize for the ad - MSNBC has stronger mojo than I do.)

The right wing whispers conspiratorially that Obama is running some sort of "shadow government" that will lead to the "socialist transformation of America" because Obama doesn't explain every single move he makes, every hour of every day.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney hides every detail of his life and the policies he plans to put in place if elected, on the fascinating theory that if he lets you know, you might point out a flaw or two.

Overall, Mitt has decided that the best road to the once-again-White House will be to campaign, not as a viable candidate, but as a not-Obama: he has nothing on his own, but he isn't the black guy.

A policy which might win him Mississippi and Alabama, but isn't likely to get him the gold.

Learning Parenthood from the Experts

Let me see if I've got this straight (so to speak).

Bristol Palin really has no business being in the public eye, other than the fact that her mother was a failed candidate for vice president who supported abstinence-only education, and Bristol stands as evidence of that policy's success. Is that about right?

So, given that fact, I suppose there's some ironic humor to be had that she keeps cropping up in the media. Most recently coughing up a short column on patheos.com, where she complained about Obama expressing support for marriage equality.

And there's some spectacular logical facepalms in there.

When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission. Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval. (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)

Well, technically, the reason for that is that Christian women are claiming support for a Bible that says:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-25 NIV)

And, for that matter:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

Those rules seem pretty straightforward. So, if the women are going to thump their Bibles at everybody, it seems like they should be asked to justify that. That's how it works, young lady - if you don't make the claim, you don't have to justify it.

The main thrust of her argument, though, is that Obama shouldn't have consulted with his teen-aged daughters to establish policy. And she's right: he shouldn't. Of course, Obama didn't set any policy, and didn't consult with his daughters to do so, but in general, she's right.

What he said was (and she even quotes him):

You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.

He even says, in the course of that, "for me, personally." It's opinion, not policy. And he mentioned his daughters in explaining how he reached that conclusion.

That's the way normal people think, Bristol. But then again, you are your mother's daughter, so I guess we can't expect logic out of you, can we?

I've got to say, though, that my favorite part would have to be this:

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads. In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage. Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home. Ideally, fathers help shape their kids' worldview.

Gee, Miss Palin, you might think that you've just made a good point, but... well, I hate to bring this up, but do you remember a certain child named Tripp? You know, the bastard baby born out of wedlock to some tramp rich slut single mother and her high-school dropout babydaddy?

Yeah, I wonder if Tripp has seen his daddy in a while?

Short memories

Does anybody remember why Hitler's march into Russia failed? It was for exactly the same reason that Napoleon's similar march failed, right? I'm not comparing Romney to Hitler, except in that they both seem unable to learn from history. This is Romney's latest campaign ad.

I'm not even going to attack the obvious lies, distortions and half-truths that it's riddled with. Instead, here's a failed campaign strategy from just 4 short years ago.

Is it just me?

A Response to Keli Goff's Article, "Is Racism Actually Worse in the Age of Obama?"

The substance of Keli Goff's HuffPo article of September 26, 2011 is that at the present time, she and other African Americans are often confronted with what critic Toure calls "the unknowable" – a sense that one is being treated differently and not quite appropriately due to race, but one that is not backable with hard proof because, obviously, the other party isn't going to 'fess up to any misdeeds or bad intentions or bias, etc.  I think the point is that while this sort of thing ranges from the silly to the serious (like losing out on a good job or not getting a home loan), the nagging suspicion it engenders takes a toll on a person's well-being.

I'd suggest that we (including our assumptions and sensibilities) are more or less a product of the generation or two preceding us.  I have some affinity with the WWII / Depression generation – probably more affinity than I feel with my own – because of the stories and insights my parents passed on to me.  Both of them were products of those times.  I'm not African American or any other ethnic minority, so I don't experience the contemporary racial "unknowable" that the writer references to Toure – i.e. "am I really being treated differently in this instance, or am I making unfair assumptions about others?"  But it's perfectly reasonable, I think, to feel this way – if you're black, you're dealing not only with the present (which may well hit you with racist moments of its own, and ambiguous or ambivalent moments that are impossible to decide and make you feel sort of like Larry David in one of those ridiculous "WTF" situations he gets into on Curb Your Enthusiasm) but also with the blatant and dreadful insults and material injuries that may be part of your family's past and that is definitely part of black people's collective past.  We most certainly do not live in a post-racial society, and the past is still embedded in present consciousness to some extent.

The Obama presidency has really called out the full-on racists from under whatever rock they'd been hiding for a few decades, and on rare occasions when I allow myself to read a major newspaper comments section, it's pretty clear that these guys spend ALL their time tapping out racist garbage on their keyboards at five in the morning.  They hate Obama for so many manufactured unreasons that they've lost count of them.  Apparently, it's hard to keep track of all the people feeding us our unreasons these days.  Blink, and we miss ten of them….  But seriously, one can only hope that this kind of blatant, open contempt for a president of African descent marks the last gasp of the Old White Guard: you know how it goes – progress always calls forth a backlash, just as MLK Jr. would tell you.  Only when certain people feel threatened do they get downright ugly, and when they do, you know you're making progress.  The Obama presidency has been painful at times because of the vileness of the opposition, but who really should have thought it wouldn't be?  A smooth ride was never in the cards.

But here's a thought – a conservative columnist in one of the papers I occasionally read seems quite taken with President Obama's gaffes – stuff like "the intercontinental railroad" (I actually like that one!  All aboard the Kansas City to London Express!) and other verbal slipups that most presidents make simply because they have to go around the country talking a lot.  Someone might say, "liberals made fun of GWB's silly remarks and Reagan's fact-challenged gems, so how's this different?"  They have a point.  But still, what I take to be the disrespectful manner of the columnist in question makes me suspicious, and perhaps this feeling approximates an instance of what Keli Goff and Toure would call an "unknowable," even though I'm not African American and don't experience the full force of what they're talking about.  Might there be some hint, in other words, of playing to those who just can't abide the president's skin color and consider it high time that we take all that power out of his supposedly incapable black hands and give it back to a white guy where it belongs?  Maybe even to a white guy who drips with ignorant scorn for the scientific method and has no idea how a modern economy works?  In sum, I think a fair amount of the criticism launched against the current president is a product of racial contempt, acknowledged or otherwise.  Not all of it, of course, but enough to deserve serious consideration.

Pragmatism, the Presidency, and Activism

I have repeatedly read posts by others who argue with great passion that President Obama should follow in the examples of Abraham Lincoln in addressing slavery and FDR in addressing the Great Depression. I appreciate the beacons that both former presidents are in the history of this country; however, what we believe to be true and what is fact often are vastly different.

A recent article, Frederick Douglass, the activist who would not 'grow up' offers a frame for evaluating the repeated criticism of President Obama from many members of the left. This article deals with President Lincoln as assessed by Frederick Douglass, not as a historian many years after the facts but as a witness to those events.

One of the most common misrepresentations of history is the oft repeated mantra that Lincoln freed the slaves. He didn't. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves that lived within the borders of states that were in rebellion against the Union; it did not apply to any slaves in the border states that were still loyal to the Union nor Confederate states which had already come under Union control; President Lincoln did not wish to lose the support of those slave owning states. The goal was to preserve the Union. As the Confederacy was not under the President's control, it did not accept Lincoln's offer to agree to the emancipation of slaves in exchange for compensation. The reality is that the Emancipation Proclamation was a grand gesture and of great symbolic value but it didn't free any slaves. [see for ex. pbs.org, thinkquest, national archives] In the year prior to the EP, 1862, Congress had passed a law that freed any Confederate slaves who escaped to the Union states and added those slaves to the Union's military ranks. Slavery did not officially end in this country until 1865 with the passage of the 13th amendment. [Id.] 

The factual details don't lessen what Lincoln accomplished. I offer this history lesson because I think that the adherence to mythology is interfering with the ability of progressives to get on the same page and work at the business of re-electing Barack Obama. Lincoln was no cowboy riding in on a white horse. He compromised on  what Frederick Douglass and  the abolitionists saw as the most significant cause of the Civil War, ending slavery. He did so because the Union could not afford to lose the slave owning border states to the Confederacy.

In 1862, Horace Greely, editor of The New York Tribune addressed an editorial to Lincoln in which he suggested that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve in its war efforts. Lincoln responded with a letter to Greely that few seem to accurately recall:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. [Lincoln letter]

Frederick Douglass took issue with Lincoln's willingness to abide slavery if that was necessary to preserve the Union. However, Douglass was also pragmatic and eventually came to respect Lincoln's seemingly measured tread.  

In April 1876, in a speech delivered at the unveiling of the Freedmen's Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,  Douglass said of Lincoln: 

...I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible...Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined. [emphasis added] [Douglass' Oration]

Frederick Douglass was an activist and activists do not have to answer to a constituency, nor do they have to play well with others. There are those who no doubt will dismiss my evaluations of activism vs. politics as narrow and cynical. I intend it as neither, but simply pragmatic. 

Activism is an essential part of political and societal change but the demand that such activism be regularly and blatantly engaged in by this President is to ask him to go beyond the bounds of his office. I chose to focus on Lincoln because of sheer laziness. Lincoln has been a hobby of mine for years and I didn't have to do a lot of research. However, similar issues can be raised with FDR's presidency.

Douglass' evaluation of Lincoln doesn't diminish the man at all but it does make it clear that no man walks on water and offers a prism that reflects how I believe history will also view Obama. Just as was Lincoln, Obama is the President, not an activist. His responsibilities are vastly different than those of an activist. I believe that far too many are demanding that Obama take on a mythical role that no president has ever exercised. 

Bachmann just won the straw vote election out of a field of Republicans, any of whom is saner than she. I find that frightening. Rather than contributing to the constant criticism of President Obama and the continual refusal to acknowledge all that has been accomplished (an extensive list) our common goal should be to ensure that the President has a second term to work towards our goals. Douglass voted for Lincoln in 1864 in spite of his concerns and supported Lincoln's campaign. We have a president who understands the system and who is working that system with every tool at his disposal. What we need are activists; the campaign slogan has always been, "Yes we can." What have you done lately?

How the Far-Left Mirrors the Far-Right

The left, including this writer, has made a career out of denouncing right-wing extremism, mainly the Tea Party and those Republicans more interested in destroying a president – and in the process, the country – than they are in working to solve the very serious problems facing our country.

Liberals justifiably mock the right’s ignorance of basic civics, the country’s history and the Constitution; after all, part of being a responsible citizen is in knowing these things. Signs with misspelled words advocating “English Only” are met with derision; posters with the swastika are met with outrage. The right’s lies, distortions and hypocrisy are greeted with a mixture of ridicule and outrage and held under the microscope by non-partisan fact-checking organizations – along with those from the left.

Harsh criticism is leveled at the racism implicit in signs at Tea Party rallies and on billboards, on edited photographs, in emails and snail mail, and on social networks. Nowhere is this more exemplified than in their tasteless personal attacks on the current President and First Family; even the children are subjected to racist insults. These character defects should and do attract scorn from most decent Americans, regardless of political persuasion.

But do I detect an echo? Can it be said that the far-left is sounding like the extremists on the right and adopting some of those very same character flaws we so vigorously reject and condemn?

The Bloggerhood: Free Speech and Hypocrisy

Very early on in my blogging career I read about how Pam, a conservative over at The Oracular Opinion, stepped in to help her friend Shaw at Progressive Eruptions who had to have surgery and needed help to keep her blog running. Liberal bloggers applauded her acts of kindness; right wingers all but tarred, feathered and ran Pam out of Blogger Town on a rail. Her crime? Aiding and abetting the enemy.

A liberal who used the name Blackwaterdog was hounded off Daily Kos by a loud, noisy chorus of ugly rhetoric. She started her own blog appropriately named The Only Adult in the Room. But the “purists” weren’t satisfied; they wanted to annihilate her. This dehumanizing effort was led by none other than Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, a good buddy of Jane Hamsher’s at FireDogLake. Her crime? Posting positive picture diaries of the President and First Family’s activities.

Not everyone may be drawn to the content on The Only Adult but does this give her critics the right to compare her to Nazi propagandist, Leni Riefenstahl? Sound familiar?

The blatant hypocrisy and the total disregard for a person’s right to free expression because their speech is not agreeable with another’s is deplorable and unacceptable. But sadly, I see many comment zones turning into war zones with the far-left resorting to personal insults when disagreeing with more pragmatic liberals who in most cases share the same ideals but not the approach.

Sentamental History

I would have been surprised had the main street media not started attacking President Obama the moment he opened his eyes on the morning after the inauguration. But I was dumbfounded at the attacks from the so-called professional progressive blogs. They began mildly enough but very quickly their rhetoric turned into a cacophony of ugly vitriol not unlike that heard from the far-right. Even worse, professional and non-professional far-left bloggers resort to the same kinds of tasteless personally degrading labels that they criticize the right for using.

“Obama should be like LBJ was” or “Obama needs to do what FDR did” is not too far removed from “I want my country back.” The glaring but simple reality is that we can’t go back in time; our country is facing a different set of problems with a different cast of characters. More obviously, Obama is not like LBJ, just as LBJ wasn’t like JFK, and JFK wasn’t like HST, and HST wasn’t like FDR, and so on.

We get our kicks out of mocking the extreme right for its ignorance of history but the far-left can be just as ignorant of and blind to documented historical facts.

FACT: When legislation for Social Security was introduced, Franklin D. Roosevelt dropped the national health care provision that was originally included. Why did he – gasp! – compromise/sell-out/cave? Because at that time and place in our history, he wisely understood that the Republicans would say NO to health care reform and in the process kill Social Security as well.

I wonder if anyone on the far-left during those gloomy dark days of the Great Depression accused FDR of being corrupt, a puppet, inept or a snake oil salesman.

FACT: The Social Security Act, signed by FDR in 1935, only covered workers in commerce and industry. In 1937 the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) was passed; it required workers to pay taxes to support the Social Security system. In 1939 Social Security was expanded to include dependents and survivors. Not until nearly 25 years later in 1950 was it expanded to cover dependents and survivors. In 1956 Disability Insurance was created and has been expanded over the years.

FACT: LBJ never would have succeeded in getting civil rights legislation passed had it not been for Republican support. The Dixiecrats, led by Strom Thurmond, did everything in and out of the book to block it. Obama is not only burdened with the yellow Blue Dogs, he is faced with an unprecedented concrete wall of well-organized obstruction from the opposition – and now he has the far-left participating in the drive to bring his presidency – and thus the country – to its knees.

The lessons here should be obvious. Not every president can get everything he may have promised during a campaign; a foolish attempt to win no doubt but no more foolish than voters who take such promises at face value. Politics has never been a “take all or nothing” kind of game. Passing legislation is in fact the “art of compromise.” The “all or nothing” school of thought is not only unrealistic, the end result is nothing.

Bloggers Get Down and Dirty

The extremes on both sides of the political spectrum have a penchant for chanting infantile slogans: “I have a right to free speech” from the right translates into “I have a right to disagree with the president” or “I have a right to criticize the president” from the left. Yes and yes, but that is not the issue.The issue is not in the message but in the way it is delivered, the language.

Vicious epithets directed at the President of our United States are limited only by their crude imaginations. One side is just as repugnant, tasteless and vile as the other. Epithets from the right include: Spoiled Brat, Obama Bin Lyin, Half-breed Muslim, Barack Hussein Obama, No Clue Balls Obama, Robbing Hood, Nazi, Terrorist, Barack the Magic Negro.

What’s the difference between that kind of toilet tank talk and this used by far-left bloggers? Barack Bush, Nel, HomophObama, Pootie Tang, the Black Mr. Rogers, House Negro.

I can’t help but wonder if there is a connection between the use of such invectives and the fact that Obama is the first black president.

Headlines such as “Barack Obama the Anatomical Wonder. We’re Looking for Organ and Skeletal Donors for Barack Obama” (from one of my favorite blogs no less) and crude – as in content and production videos such as this one.

Other Mirror Images

Who cares what the majority thinks?
It’s all about “me”, not about “we”.
My preferences are more important than yours.
The president is ignoring our side.
I only listen to Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann.
What party of NO? What obstructionism?
Our country is on the verge of collapse. It’s the eve of destruction.
If I can’t have it all and NOW, I’m staying home.
I’m not paranoid. What denial?
Who? Me Whine?

. . . I know we liberals like to say that we don't march lock-step with our leaders as do the GOPers, but where does it say we have to destroy them with the same sort of dehumanizing invective and emasculating and emotional strafing that the far right uses on Obama? I have seen over my lifetime a radicalization of our politics and the extremes in both parties by true believers will keep us in a constant state of combat instead of making some sort of arrangement to get done the very important work that this country needs to get done.

I wish I had said this but I didn’t. It was included in an email from Shaw at Progressive Eruptions. I owe her a debt of gratitude for her insight and willingness to guide me and keep me on track.

There are several reasons I don’t visit right-wing sights: the epithets, the hysterics, the distortion of facts, the sniping, and the doomsday mentality. Maybe I’m just uncomfortable with extremes because I find myself visiting fewer and fewer far-left sites these days. I truly feel both extremes have a humanitarian problem and that if they don’t become more realistic and less pugnacious - more willing to give and take – it will not be because of Obama that this country collapses.

"Obama Hasn't Accomplished A Damn Thing": Oh Yeah?

Proudly lifted from NEWS JUNKIE POST:

There are a few excellent resources where the victories of Change and Reform have been assembled on the internet, including the Democratic Change Update (reposted on News Junkie Post), the 244 Accomplishments of Obama, and the Things Obama Has Done page on Facebook.

While the mainstream media narrative has been dominated by right wing and Tea Party talking points, many of the fundamental changes in direction of this country have not received the attention they deserve. Now in one day, the very politicians who venomously opposed these reforms, the very people who want to take America back to the days of Bush are poised to retake the US House of Representatives. They are banking on the short attention span of voters, so share this list liberally!

Following are the "chapter headings" with categories further defined under each heading - by the bucket fulls.
And being good liberals, there are links to back up each and everyone of them.

Banking and Financial Reform
Civil Rights
Commerce, Trade and technology
Conservation
Economy
Education: College
Education: Health of Children
Employment: Jobs
Energy: Green
Energy: Old
Energy: Oil
Foreign Affairs and International Relations
Government Efficiency
Health and Wellness
Health Care Reform (See also Taxes)
Housing
Humanitarianism
Immigration
Infrastructure
Labor
Law and Justice
Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security
Military and National Security
Military Veterans and Families
National Disasters and Emergencies
National Service
Scientific and Medical Research
Space Exploration and Space Station
Taxes
Transparency and Accountability
Recovery, Progress and Change
Miscellaneous



IMPORTANT NOTICE: DEMOCRATS WHO DON'T VOTE ARE NO BETTER THAN YELLOW BLUE DOGS. IF THE CRAZIES WIN, THE ENTIRE COUNTRY LOSES. DINOS ARE TO DEMOCRATS WHAT THE TEA PARTY IS TO LOVE AND HONOR.*

VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT NEAR YOU

IT IS YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY

This is just my opinion and may not reflect the views of The Swash Zone. TnLib

What have you done for me lately?

I was having a late lunch with a friend of mine yesterday, Russ, who volunteers for the Martin Heinrich campaign. And he mentioned a campaign mailer that he helped send out, which showed Heinrich's opponent, along with McCain, Palin and other Republicans. This is one of the basic messages from Democrats this year. "OK, so we suck. But they suck more!"

That's not really a message that raises people's spirits, is it? Not really inspiring hope, right there.

But that seems to be the nature of this political season. Go negative, as hard as possible. And while you might be expecting this to be a Republican tactic (after all, if you have no new ideas of your own, what do you campaign on?), it's coming from the Democrats, too.

Was there ever a time in America when politicians would just run on their accomplishments? Or at least show how your political beliefs are improving the country?

Well, we can thank that media narrative being advanced by the right-wing press, who want us to believe that a Democratic White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress are getting nothing done. Or worse, destroying the country.

Some Democrats are just leaving Obama out of their ads (and at least one tongue-kisses George W. Bush). Because, after all, Obama hasn't been able to get anything done, has he?

Which, of course, is complete bullshit. But try telling that to the media.

(Perhaps this is why Bush's "No Child Left Behind" focuses more on children regurgitating what they've been told recently, and less on critical thinking. A compliant electorate, used to being fed the answers and not thinking about the questions, is easier to fool.)

Now, admittedly, anything that the Obama administration has accomplished has been over the intractable resistance of a Republican party who would watch the country to fall to ruins before they'd allow a Democratic President to succeed. Hell, they're already planning, if they "win" the midterms, to do absolutely nothing except smear the president. (You know, like the end of Clinton's term, only with less ethical investigators and a compliant press.)

Obama took an economy in free-fall, and has managed to stop the plummet. It's true that everything isn't perfect. But consider what this country was up against.

"Hey, you've had two years to clean up what we took eight years to break! Aren't you done yet?"

Despite what the GOP desperately want you to believe, Obama's stimulus program worked. It didn't work well enough, because Obama and his advisors were too conservative - it didn't go far enough, but it still worked.

In the words of Alan S. Blinder (professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, vice chairman of the Promontory Interfinancial Network, and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board):

TARP must be among the most reviled and misunderstood programs in the history of the republic. Voters are clearly appalled by the idea that their government spent $700 billion bailing out banks.

The only problem is: It didn't. Even if we count insurance giant AIG as a bank, no more than $300 billion ever went to banks. TARP's total disbursements, including the auto bailout, never reached the $400 billion mark. The money went for loans and to purchase preferred stock; it was not "spent." In fact, most of it has already been paid back—with interest and capital gains. When TARP's books are eventually closed, the net cost to the taxpayer will probably be under $100 billion—far under if General Motors ever repays.

Spending perhaps $50 billion of taxpayer money to forestall a financial cataclysm seems like a bargain. Yes, I know it's maddening to hand over even a nickel to bankers who don't deserve it. But doing so was a necessary evil to save the economy. Think of it as collateral damage in a successful war against financial armageddon.

And it continues. He's enacted cuts in spending, instituted financial reforms to prevent another economic meltdown, passed credit card reform to keep the banks from stealing from you directly.

Oh, and he also passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, to essentially prevent businesses from saying "Hey, she let us fuck her for four months before she complained. It must not be an issue! So we can keep on fucking her!"

He has installed not one, but two female Supreme Court justices; Elena Kagan actually started her new job on Friday. There have been twenty Supreme Court Justices appointed since 1960 (date chosen arbitrarily as the second wave of the Feminist movement). Only four of them have been women: they make up 51% of the population, they're equally affected by the law, but only four have been appointed to the Supreme Court; and Obama is responsible for doubling that number. And, by the way, we also have the first Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.

(Think of that number for a second, by the way. Fifty years, and only twenty Justices. You wonder why American jurisprudence is so freaking slow? Where's the anti-incumbent crowd on this issue?)

You know that a lot of the provisions in healthcare reform just kicked in, right? Yes, it could have been better, it could have had a public option, it could have given puppies and kittens to every child in the United States. But it's also the first major healthcare change since the Medicare and Medicaid legislation was passed almost half a century ago.

And despite the panicked cries of the ignorant and ill-informed (as well as the blatant liars), it's entirely market-based, without even a tinge of socialism.

And America is now safer than it was just twenty-one months ago. America's reputation in the international community is improved, we are withdrawing from Iraq, in as safe a manner as possible. And we're moving toward an effective nuclear treaty among the world's major powers.

And these are just highlights, without even mentioning advances in environmental protection, science and education, among others.

George Santayana once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." But at the moment, maybe we should just work on understanding current events.

Politico Sinks to New Low in Non-News Reporting

The main stream media has been receiving a lot of harsh criticism over the last couple of years, decades maybe, for using bad news judgement, most of it well deserved. Politico just beat the crap out of them by sinking to the bottom of the cesspool.

Are these non-entities serious? Where is the news worthiness in this banal non-news story? Has all judgement been flushed down the toilet? Another time of the year, I would think it was an April Fools joke or that I had landed at the Onion by mistake - or at Fox News.

In what is undoubtedly the most inane news story I have ever had the misfortune of reading, reporters

Patrick Gavin and Amie Parnes (requires two to write this garbage?) take the president to task for - hold your breath - going ringless at today's "presser." Oh my God! Rates right up there with jobs and medical research don't it?

Sometimes, a White House press conference can be a chance for a president to take some weight off his shoulders ... but weight off his fingers?

Eagle-eyed reporters noticed that President Barack Obama wasn't sporting his wedding ring during Friday's White House press conference.

"big to-do over potus not wearing his wedding ring today," Tweeted The Hill's Sam Youngman, who was at the presser.

Presser? Please, somebody tell me this is a joke. I actually read this piece of shiitake three times to make sure I wasn't missing something. The comments indicated it was meant as an honest-to-God news story.

Jim in Houston:  Which ring, the one for his finger or the one in his nose? Big Meshell leads him around like a dog on a leash.

MAC59: He is probably getting it adapted to fit in his nose. 

maxovrdriv: I just figured he wanted his favorite verse from the Quran put on it.

But this conservative says it best:

zjak10: BFD! I mean who the heck cares, really?

So, why do I care? I don't.

Judge rules against deep water drilling moratorium

Why does this not surprise me?

Today a federal judge in New Orleans blocked a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling that the Obama administration had ordered after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

In a 22-page ruling, Judge Martin L. C. Feldman of Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a May 28 order halting all floating offshore drilling projects in more than 500 feet of water and preventing the government from issuing new permits for such projects.

Citing the economic harm to businesses and workers in the gulf caused by the moratorium, Judge Feldman — a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan — wrote that the Obama administration had failed to justify the need for the sweeping suspension, which he characterized as “generic, indeed punitive.”

He wrote that “the blanket moratorium, with no parameters, seems to assume that because one rig failed and although no one yet fully knows why, all companies and rigs drilling new wells over 500 feet also universally present an imminent danger.”

The White House immediately responded by saying that it would appeal the decision.

Good. But what hope is there with the current and seemingly currupt Supreme Court?

The Obama administration had argued that a six-month suspension of deepwater drilling was necessary so that the government could complete its investigation of the Deepwater Horizon accident, and make sure that other drilling operations on the outer continental shelf were safe.

But the order was challenged by a coalition of businesses that provide services and equipment to offshore drilling platforms. The companies sued, asking the judge to declare the moratorium to be invalid and arguing that there was no evidence that existing operations were unsafe.

If I remember correctly, there was no evidence the Deepwater Horizon drill was unsafe either - until it exploded killing 11 workers and  spewing anywhere from 67 million to 127 million gallons of oil into the Gulf.

I'm sure businesses that rely on oil companies to stay afloat are deeply concerned about the welfare of the residents, wildlife and environment in the area. Do I hear the echo of BP in the background?

The State of Louisiana filed a brief supporting the lawsuit, arguing that the moratorium would damage its economy.

I can appreciate the concern of Gulf Coast residents for their livelihood and I wouldn't want to be in their shoes - not for a day, not for a minute. But sometimes short-term sacrifices have to be made to ensure that the future will provide a safer and more secure life style.

Catherine Wannamaker, a lawyer for environmental groups that intervened in the case and supported the moratorium, called the ruling "a step in the wrong direction."

"We think it overlooks the ongoing harm in the Gulf, the devastation it has had on people's lives," she said. "The harm at issue with the Deepwater Horizon spill is bigger than just the Louisiana economy. It affects all of the Gulf."

UPDATE FROM MOTHER JONES: According to the most recently available financial disclosure form for US District Court Judge Martin Feldman, he had holdings of up to $15,000 in Transocean in 2008. He has also recently owned stock in offshore drilling or oilfield service providers Halliburton, Prospect Energy, Hercules Offshore, Parker Drilling Co., and ATP Oil & Gas

Tea Party! An(other) Open Letter

Dear Tea Party Leaders,
Have I mentioned I'm not a big Tea Party fan? One of the top reasons is because too many folks who participate in these rallies don't really know what they want. There's a serious lack of direction. Case in point:*



Somehow, your movement has managed to attract Birthers, racists, libertarians, Republicans, anti-big government folks and folks who are just feed up in general (among others). That's a whole lot of (often) conflicting ideologies and goals. Which means there's an incredible lack of consistency in the Tea Party position beyond "the government is too big."

A few questions for you Tea Party Leaders (excluding Fox News, since I think they're full of sh*t anyway): How is the government too big? How exactly do you suggest slimming down the government? Which federal agencies should go? What/who would pick up the slack of those eliminated federal agencies? Would the slack be picked up at all? What is the Tea Party's view on health care reform in general (not just the recently passed bill)? What about immigration and/or immigration reform? Regarding taxes, how does one propose funding the military/unemployment/Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security etc. without some form of taxation? Or should those programs just fall by the wayside?

I normally describe myself as a moderate with liberal tendencies. That's only half true. I'm a liberal with both liberal and conservative tendencies. When election time rolls around, I do actually (attempt) to research the candidates and try to choose the candidate I think will be best for America. In the last election, I heard it from both sides, both my liberal and conservative friends, because I was seriously considering voting for Hilary Clinton (hand she won the primaries), Barack Obama and John McCain (up until he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate). Out of the last 3 presidential elections that I've been able to vote in, the candidate I hauled my ass to the post office/American Embassy to send my absentee ballot in for has won exactly once. One out of three is a pretty sh*tty record. When my chosen candidates lost, did I start shouting about how the tyrannical Commie Fascist  government was ruining America or talk about how my rights were being trampled on without representation? No. And why didn't I?

One, in my humble opinion no government in the history of America has been Communist or tyrannical in the true sense of the words, although some of my Southern brethren who are still fighting the damn Civil War might disagree. Sidenote: You lost. Deal. With. It. Please feel free, Tea Party Leaders, to disagree with me on the Communist/Fascist/tyrannical government point, providing evidence that does not include Fox News or anyone associated with Fox News with the exception of Shepard Smith, who I secretly kinda love.

And two, not liking your representation isn't the same thing as not having representation. You have representation. Not having representation looks something like this: being counted as 3/5th of a person while being denied the right to vote, hold property, marry or be treated like a human being. That's not having representation. So until the day the Obama administration officially repeals voting rights for all white Americans (I say this only because the Tea Party rallies seem to be overwhelming white, another point y'all might want to look into), I'm really going to need y'all to stop throwing out that whole "no representation" thing.

Oh and while we're on the topic, I keep reading all this stuff about how the Obama administration is stomping on the Constitution blah blah blah, generally from strict constructionist. Refer back to the 3/5th Compromise on why my black-descendant-of-slaves ass is not a strict constructionist. In my (over)educated opinion, part of the reason the Constitution has worked so well for so long is because it's a document which can grow and change with the times (see Article 5)....something the Framers ever so thoughtfully allowed for, even if they did drop the ball with the whole black-folks-as-chattel thing.

Since I'm leaving France in a week anyway and avoiding doing anything at all productive, I'm going to go ahead and address the Birthers element of the Tea Party movement's whole "Obama wasn't born in America" thing (despite the birth certificate) for sh*ts and giggles. Let's assume the Birthers have a point on this (they don't). Doesn't. F*cking. Matter. His mother was American. He gets citizenship through her anyway, in addition to being born in Hawaii (yes, it is consider part of these United States). And before any of your Birthers cite the "natural born citizen" clause, please note the Constitution doesn't really set down the criteria for "natural born citizen." Go ahead and check. I'll wait.

And breath. Rant. Over

Toodles,
American Black Chick in Europe

*P.S. To the young lady in the video who called Glenn Beck "very educational," I can see the American educational system greatly failed you. And for that I'm truly sorry. Beck could connect the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus to a Commie-Islamo-Fascist plot to overthrow America using that delightful chalkboard of his if he wanted to. The writer in me is impressed with his level of creativity. The non-batsh*t crazy person in me secretly weeps that folks believe him.

Cross-posted from American Black Chick in Europe.

Pathologizing Dissent, or Deja Vu All Over Again

Hendrik Hertzberg, from The New Yorker magazine, whose political commentary I usually enjoy and agree with, has just added himself to the growing and not-so-illustrious line of those who mock and dismiss critics of our so-called health care reform bill, in his piece aptly titled -- because of its unintentional self-mockery -- Um, Pathetic.

To his credit, Hertzberg, somewhat reluctantly, admits that the bill has “conspicuous flaws,” but he breezily absolves our lawmakers of their responsibility for them, maintaining, rather unconvincingly, that our Congress is an inanimate entity, impervious to human feelings, thoughts, or intentions.

A curious observation, that, especially in light of the various astounding concessions our supposedly unfeeling and unthinking Senators (OK, there may be some truth to it) were able to intentionally finagle for their votes. For example, the sweet and jaw-dropping Medicaid deal for Nebraska secured by just one (allegedly unfeeling and unthinking) individual Senator, Ben Nelson. Or a mind-boggling provision giving Medicare benefits to all citizens of one town in Montana, obtained by Senator Baucus. (This begs an obvious question: if it can be done for all citizens of one whole town, why not for all citizens of our country?)

For an inanimate, unfeeling entity, the Senate members have shown remarkable, life-like nimbleness and skills in securing favorable concessions on their own behalf (because, let’s face it, they were negotiated with an eye on their upcoming elections).

Furthermore, Hertzberg does something even more unsavory in his attempt to excuse the Senate and President Obama from bearing responsibility for the "conspicuous flaws" of this bill: he joins the chorus of those who pathologize dissenting critics, even though his attempts at this untoward exercise are somewhat less heavy-handed than those done by the White House.

But Hertzberg too ridicules people like Howard Dean (whom the White House called “insane,” “irrational” and “uninformed”), Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, Ralph Nader, and others. Not that he gives any space in his column to discussing the merits of their criticisms – he dismisses them off hand, attributing to the critics' thinking a “pathetic fallacy:" that of considering our Congress to be populated by living and breathing human beings.

Hertzberg says,

The pathetic fallacy is a category mistake. It’s the false attribution of human feelings, thoughts, or intentions to inanimate objects, or to living entities that cannot possibly have such feelings, thoughts, or intentions—cruel seas, dancing leaves, hot air that “wants” to rise.

Ah, yes, cruel seas and dancing leaves. Just like our Congress.

To think of it, accusing one of cultivating a “pathetic fallacy” is only a tiny bit less offensive, if at all, than calling one “insane” (as it was done to Howard Dean). But the overall message is the same: the critics of the insurance reform must be, well - what’s the word? – crazy. Their thinking is seriously and "pathetically" compromised. That’s the diagnosis at which Hertzberg and others in his camp arrive without giving any consideration to the merits of the critics’ objections.

For some of us, this trend to pathologize dissent has the familiar aura of the way the Soviet government dealt with its critics, labeling them psychotic if they dared to voice their opposition to its policies. The next step was forced hospitalization and “treatment” – thankfully, Hertzberg et al. are not advocating that. Yet.

Instead, they issue soothing assurances from experts, like Paul Krugman who calls this massive and mandatory transfer of the American working and middle-class into the hands of private corporations “a great achievement.”

Reasonable people disagree on this. Rather than “establishing the principle that all Americans are entitled to essential health care,” as Krugman says (quoted by Hertzberg), the bill clearly establishes that all Americans are to be sacrificed like lambs on the altars of the corporate profits – or be punished if they refuse to participate in the sacrifice.

Call it what you will, but please do not call it a “great achievement,” or, even worse, a historic health care overhaul, as our grandiose and self-serving lawmakers and pundits are prone to do. That’s as offensive and possibly harmful as being diagnosed insane for pointing out the unpalatable obvious.

Hertzberg also compares the current legislation to the troubled and imperfect process of enacting Medicare under, first, Kennedy, and then Lyndon Johnson, as if forgetting that Medicare is a government-run program and not yet another corporate enterprise (which is what this health insurance reform effectively turns our health care into).

He lectures angry progressives, in the condescending manner of one who can so capably point out others' pathetic fallacies, that their indignation would be better directed at what an earlier generation of malcontents called “the system”—starting, perhaps, with the Senate’s filibuster rule, an inanimate object if there ever was one.

Curiously, or not at all, somehow Hertzberg does not seem to appreciate a possible fallacy creeping into his own reasoning -- that trying to change "the system" is only slightly more challenging than trying to change individual minds of "the system's" members.

But you know what they say: one man's fallacy is another's New Yorker's commentary.

Last but not least: Hertzberg takes exception to those who call Obama a “liar.” All right. What should we call the President then, if he has broken his major campaign and early presidential promises pertaining to the health care reform (e.g., on drug price controls and importation, public option, tax increases – you know, all those things that would make this legislation a real reform, and not just putting lipstick on the corporate pig)?

Not only that, but when recently asked about his abandonment of the public option, Obama stated that he never campaigned on it or promised it, which flies in the face of verifiable facts (i.e., his own documented statements). If these are not lies, what should we call them – terminological inexactitudes perhaps?

On one thing, however, I agree with Hertzberg: yes, it is all, um, pathetic.

Cross-posted from The Middle of Nowhere.

Who's Your Daddy?

In her Jan. 9th 2010 column entitled, “Captain Obvious Learns the Limits of Cool,” Maureen Dowd writes something I would like to comment on. Once again, and as so often in recent years, we meet the language of the Papa Bear State, a concept I have been snorting at and stamping against for some time now. Et tu, MoDo, et tu! Then fall, Blogging Dino. (Cue heavy thud just short of impact tremor. Impact tremors are reserved for T-Rex.) We are told towards the end of the column, if I understand rightly, that President Obama, in supposedly failing to respond quickly and passionately enough to the Christmas-day near miss over Detroit, has squandered his opportunity “to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders” and who “reassures and instructs” Americans when danger threatens or disaster strikes.

The second formulation may encapsulate a reasonable expectation, but the first is unfortunate. The president is an intelligent and capable man, and I am glad I voted for him. “That hope and change thing” is still working out for me, thank you. But “strong father”? He is no more than a few years my senior, and probably several years the junior of many people reading or contributing to this blog. I didn’t vote for a National Father last November; I voted for the individual I hoped would become the 44th POTUS. What I like about Barack Obama is precisely that he seems intent on rejecting the “papafication” of the presidency, even though he can hardly be said to have diminished the powers of the office in his one year at the helm. In short, he tends to speak to the citizenry as if they were rational adults. That’s a risk, of course, because a disturbing number of Americans become terrified for their skins quicker than you can say “exploding underwear.” But I give Obama credit for taking the risk, and I find his allegedly too-aloof way of dealing with crises preferable to the tendencies of the previous administration.

Employing the language of the Daddy State, in the long run, only encourages the brutes who deny the wisdom of Ben Franklin’s dictum, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, London: Henry Colburn, 1818. 270; Franklin places the sentence in quotation marks.) The president may be the most powerful individual on the planet, and he is undeniably invested with a great deal of symbolic value; he bears some responsibility, most of us would probably agree, for keeping the country as safe as it can be while still observing the constitution he swore to uphold. He is not, however—and apparently does not want to be—“Our Father, Who Lives on Pennsylvania Avenue.” Never mind “the limits of cool”: the discursive limits or boundaries that President Obama takes into account are those required to maintain a healthy relationship between a republican citizenry and the individual they have chosen for a time to serve as their highest official.

So please, call the honorable Mr. Obama a clean and articulate communo-fascist Kenyan Muslim terrorist-fist-bumping negro-dialect-free granny-killer if you must, but not “Daddy.” We have enough outlandish descriptions for Barack already, and there is little doubt the pie will be made still higher in coming years. It's Permanent Silly-Season Revolution for this man's opponents, and evidently even some of his well-meaning supporters can't help playing the useful idiot from time to time. I will just go with “President Obama.” Simple. Dignified. Even a dinosaur can roll with that....

Unholy and Anti-American Trifecta

The latest proof that "Obama is tearing apart the fabric of America" as Sean "Insanity" Hannity recently observed, hit my in-box with a time stamp only minutes ahead of Urban Legends refutation of the e-mail claiming that our president was the first to hit the "unholy and Anti-American Trifecta." It's claimed he failed to show up at the Army Navy game, or to attend any Christmas religious observance, and stayed on vacation following a terrorist attack.

He must be doing rather well if this is the smelliest crock they can come up with -- and of course and as usual, it is indeed a crock. George W. Bush, the president most often described during his term as the right hand of Jesus missed 5 out of 8 of them. Woodrow Wilson didn't attend a Christmas church service in 1914, nor did Herbert Hoover in 1929, nor Lyndon Johnson in 1968. It would take some research, but I'm willing to bet this isn't unique or uncommon. Presidents haven't always been expected to be examples of public religiosity after all and Christmas was opulently celebrated at the White House this year, even if Fox took pains not to notice.

As to staying on vacation after a failed terrorist attack in which nobody but the attacker was hurt, the claim would require that he had ignored it and had spent the day on the beach, which of course isn't true. The President travels with his flying White House and a large staff, briefings were held, he ordered beefed up security and passenger screenings and ordered a review of the terrorist watch list and made statements to the public.

This being the 21st century, being in Honolulu or being in Washington DC has little bearing on the effectiveness of the president. Certainly jumping on AF 1 and heading as fast and far away from DC, as the previous president did after an actual and successful attack doesn't make the current President look all that bad, nor does the fact that the Republican broke all records for vacation time.

Please do remember, far milder criticism of Bush resulted in cries of treason from the same people who insist that the country is being destroyed and make up lies to prove it. He's here, he's President, he's black. Get the hell over it and stop trying to sabotage my country.

BREAKING NEWS: Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Is a Mistake!

We have a BREAKING NEWS update: an anonymous source from Oslo contacted us with earth-shattering news: announcing Obama as this year's Peace Prize winner was premature and an unfortunate mistake.

It turns out the real winner was Jesus Christ from Jerusalem, a long-time community organizer and religious leader. The news has not yet been officially released, with the exception of an unsourced, so far, leak to The Ga-Ga Land Dispatch.

TGGLD reporters have the latest reactions of The Ga-Ga Land most eminent citizens to this explosive story:

Rush Limbaugh: "Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. This fully exposes the illusion that is Jesus Christ. And with this 'award' the elites of the world are urging Christ, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the world and the United States... They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too. Not to mention he is obviously partial to his only son." Limbaugh also told Newsweek that "the Nobel gang just suicide-bombed themselves."

"I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota," wrote Erick Erickson, of the site RedState.com, "but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. Obviously they chose the Jew here to make a political statement."

"Jesus Christ isn't the first minority to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but he's the first to win it without having accomplished anything," wrote John Miller, of the National Review. "Christ's award is simply the projection of wishful thinking."

Indeed, the citizens of The Ga-Ga Land started an online petition just seconds after the announcement was made, objecting to the "absurd decision to award J. Christ Nobel Peace Prize."

"I predict right now that he will find a way to basically turn it down," Time Magazine's Mark Halperin told MSNBC's Morning Joe. "I think he is going to say, I share this with the world or whatever. I don't think he'll embrace this. Because there is no upside. He is the son of God -- does he really need a Nobel Prize?"

Bill Kristol suggests that Jesus Christ will be kicked out in 2012, based on the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed a year after Mikhail Gorbachev won a Nobel Peace Prize.

A prominent member of The Ga-Ga Land elite, Glenn Beck, says Christ doesn't deserve the prize, but the Tea Party protesters do. He credited an "extraordinarily powerful global progressive network for bagging Jesus the win," and added, "for Christ's sake, I hope he rejects this phony award and gives it to me."

National Review's Andy McCarthy says the prize is already damaged goods, because Yasser Arafat once won it, and so did the hopeless pinko Jimmy Carter.

Joe Schmoe, a president of the local Chamber of Commerce in Ga-Ga City was somewhat less critical: "I, for one, am glad that Jesus Christ won instead of Obama. A Nobel Peace Prize for Obama would be a joke. C'mon, the guy has two wars going, and today he bombed the Moon! Peace, my (expletive)."

An anonymous source from the White House said that upon hearing the breaking news, President Obama sighed and muttered, Thank you, Jesus!

H/t HuffPo

Cross-posted at The Middle of Nowhere (where else?)

The plots thicken

I don't know why, but since the Vietnam era, the hawkish types seem to have preferred the world "embolden" to the more conventional "encourage." It may be simply that we prefer not to use the word "courage" when talking about our enemies, but figuring that one out is beyond any area of expertise I might pretend to. None the less, the Cheneyesque assumption that Obama, by being Obama, the liberal/fascist/Commie/Muslim born in Kenya and Indonesia will spur or "embolden" Islamic enemies to attack us to a greater extent than the refulgent presidency of George W. Bush did, is sure to be in the news again.

The last few days have seen the arrest of people involved in credible bomb plots, including the attempt to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, Texas. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, 19-year-old illegal immigrant from Jordan was arrested after he dialed a number on his cell phone that he had been duped by Federal Agents into believing would detonate a large bomb. He had been under close surveillance for some time.

This follows on the heels of the arrest of Denver resident Najibullah Zazi as part of another bomb conspiracy that had advance to the point of assembling the chemical components. Both of these plots were foiled by what seems to be good police work and not anything resulting from the massive powers given to the President by the infamous "Patriot Act."

It would be hard to justify the opinion that the 2001 attack was a one-shot deal not to be repeated and it's been a no brainer to predict that the next attack wouldn't involve hijacking airplanes. Although Zazi may have received training in Pakistan and Smadi claims to be a "soldier of bin Laden," these plots may have less to do with anything hatched at the top levels of some central organization than with the more diverse worldwide culture of anti-Western hatred. It's hard to say these attempts wouldn't have happened if Afghanistan had been cleansed of the Taliban orQaeda training camps. Of course the threat remains vanishingly small to any individual but it's important to note that Smadi wanted to blow up Wells Fargo as a blow to our banking system -- and it would have been.

But again, the FBI seems to have done its job and without waterboards or Transylvanian castle dungeons or reading the mail of the Quaker churches and without bombing any country back to the dark ages and this makes the idea that Obama has disabled our ability to deal with terrorists less of a credible talking point.

Le mot Juste

A kind word turneth away wrath and saying just the right thing can create confidence. President Elect Barak Obama said all the right things and looked as presidential as anyone ever has in his first press conference this afternoon. Chris Matthews even had to admit that there was no sign of a "redistributive" mood in his tax plan although in fact there never was, and who could resist a smile when Obama compared himself to a mutt from the animal shelter?

This is a man confident in himself and who appears to be confident in his ability and confident in our country. It's in sharp contrast to the anonymous e-mail I got last night showing the Obama campaign logo as African tribesmen danced almost naked around a fire. So while I've come to feel that for once I voted for someone I believe in rather than the lesser of two evils; while I am at this moment as proud of the USA as I have been and more proud than I have been in many years, I'm beginning to daydream about blowing the heads off racists.

A christian friend of mine once said that such people were ignorant and should be pitied. I know he's right, but it doesn't help. It only encourages them. So whoever you are "floridajoker," be aware that pity only makes my aim better.

Colin Powell's Endorsement of Barack Obama

Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama was about as thoroughgoing as this dinosaur could have hoped, the general’s polite qualifying phrases aside. He demolished Senator McCain’s potential closing arguments for the last few weeks of the campaign: the “experience and c-in-c prep argument,” the economics argument (though McCain had already ruined that one himself), the character attacks alleging radicalism, and the insinuation of an unacceptable degree of “otherness” in Obama’s person and background. McCain isn’t likely to change many minds from here on out, especially since his running mate and high-level supporters keep declaring whole swaths of the country “un-American,” claiming that our core values are hunting and fishing, insulting us by lying to our faces about things that have already been proven several times over against them, and so forth. They just can’t help saying transparently blockheaded, alienating things because if they didn’t say them, they would have nothing at all to say. For once, we seem to be showing some collective determination to invalidate the cynical judgment that “nobody ever lost a nickel underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” (Either P. T. Barnum or H. L. Mencken said that, I believe.) What I’m seeing – based in part on those huge St. Louis crowds Barack is drawing now, and the amount of money he raised in September ($150 million, mostly from small donors) -- looks like a genuine upwelling of healthy regard for participatory guv’ment. Still two weeks to go, but at present things are looking good. Maybe humans aren’t so bad after all, though I still think things were better and simpler in the Jurassic. We didn’t have politics at all because we had already achieved Aristotle’s dream of “the good life.” Bloody asteroids!