Two amendments proposing a public option were shot down in the Senate Finance Committee today: the first amendment was crafted by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and rejected in a 15-8 vote (five Democrats joined all the Republicans), and the second one, by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), was killed by a vote of 13-10, with three Democrats joining the Republicans.
Here they are, the Infamous Five (really GOPers in sheep's clothing):
As HuffPo reports, there were predictable eruptions of idiocy during SFC's deliberations:
Republican senators argued that the public option would bankrupt the country and lead to a single-payer system.* "Government is not a competitor. Government is a predator," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
Yet the GOP also defended Medicare, which Democrats took pains to point out was a government-run plan.
Sen. Rockefeller is not daunted by today's defeat. As he told HuffPo, "The public option is on the march," a view echoed by Robert Reich in his recent blog post.
So let's do our civic duty and deluge our representatives' offices, again, with e-mails, phone calls and faxes, to make sure that PO stays alive and we won't have to resort to a single prayer option for our health care needs.
In case anyone hasn't heard, GottaLaff at The Political Carnival has been recognized on CNN for breaking news about a Facebook poll, said polls being on the question of whether the nation's first black president should be assassinated. That's why I'm giving her a Best Blogger nod. She's done a lot to mainstream the progressive 'sphere.
Granted that the subject matter is all kinds of awful. If you read this post yesterday, then you know how angry the poll makes me.
But have you looked at the poll? The options are...well...read for yourself:
A) Yes
B) Maybe
C) If he cuts my health care
D) No
The only correct answer, of course, is E) WHY THE FRAKKING HADES WOULD YOU ASK ME THAT?! But I digress.
D is all the way at the end, making it the least-likely random choice. Anyone eager to answer "yes" gets the option first. Those smart enough not to click while Teh Silent Unmarked Helicopters™ circle are given a chance to hint their true feelings. Then there's a chance for someone to voice a specific beef with Obama's agenda before you choose the only nearly-correct answer in the poll.
Hypothesis: this is a poll designed to learn the cumulative total of Stupid, Wacky, and Crazy on Facebook.
Pope Benedict XVItravelled to Prague, Czech Republic this week to try to revitalize (drum up business) for the Church which lost most of its vast influence under the communist regime. After years of communist rule, the Czech Republic remains a largely secular society. In fact, many Czechs thought his trip irrelevant while some were downright hostile.
Why the hostility? Well, it seems that since the fall of communism in the Czech Republic, the Vatican has had an ongoing battle to reclaim St Vitus Cathedral. I had the rare honor to stand within the walls of this cathedral back in the 1970s and I hope to do it again in the spring.
St Vitus is more than just a large elaborate piece of architecture; it is a national treasure. Surrounded by Prague Castle, St Vitus is the final resting place for many Bohemian kings and Czech patron saints, including St Wenceslaus. Kings and queens were coroneted there and the cathedral is now home to the crown jewels. Many Czechs believe the Vatican is more interested in property than people’s souls and I tend to agree when it comes to the acquisition of St Vitus. The rich history of the Czech people lives and breathes within the walls of the cathedral and the castle and should be entrusted to no one BUT the Czech people.
Those of you who know me from Osborne Ink are aware that I blog too much already, but this land-bound writer cannot resist the siren song of the (O)CT(O)PUS. This being my first post for The Swash Zone, I suppose an introduction and mission statement is in order.
Beginning with the personal: I discovered my liberalism on the day in 1980 that my third-grade teacher Mrs. Huffington (an ironic name) took my incomplete pencil-drawing of a dragon and destroyed it amid senile mutterings of Satanic influence. My inspiration -- a deluxe vinyl LP of Rankin-Bass' The Hobbit, including storybook -- was confiscated for a day. Mrs. Huffington's proud ignorance -- indeed, one could call it arrogance -- also led her to dispatch the classroom's sole Jehovah's witness to the office every day so she could lead the room in the Pledge of Allegiance.
When my father was informed, his reaction was as near to ballistic as I have ever seen from a northeastern liberal. This gentle soul, later ordained an Episcopal deacon and deeply involved in prison ministry programs, tore the flabby educator a new metaphorical orifice.
This incident, like many others, made it difficult for me or my family to maintain a social circle outside of the small academe of Northwest Alabama. We were transplants from the north -- and from a way of thinking that clashed with southern culture.
My family hails from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line; my maternal ancestors escaped Savannah ahead of Sherman's army, resettling in Missouri and then New England. But my paternal line is of pure Yankee extraction, including one of the early presidents of Harvard. I am the direct descendant of men who fought the bloody British at Bunker Hill and invented American higher education.
From an early age, then, I felt called to rebel against the tyranny of Teh Stupid™. As the 1980s progressed, Mrs. Huffington's attitudes were endemic to Alabama and the conservative movement as a whole. The voices raised in opposition to Harry Potter books today come from the same people who picketed The Last Temptation of Christ in 1987 and sued the state to have my American history textbook replaced with a more "Christian-friendly" (read: less informative) one.
Before I was even old enough to vote, I was rebelling through action and opinion. My first letter to the editor was published two years before I had a driver's license. One year later, mine was the second signature establishing the Alabama chapter of the ACLU -- right below my father's. Needless to say, I became inured to the harshest criticisms long ago.
While it may seem a myopic product of a provincial life, the sum total of my experiences has led me to form an Alabama Theory of Wingnuttery™. To wit:
All wingnuttery originates in Alabama.
Indeed, a strong case can be made that no original wingnuttery has been formulated outside the state of Alabama in over a century. Every John Bircher tract, every Phyllis Schlafly speech, every Michelle Malkin blog post has a prologue in this state. Could I only share a scrapbook of op-ed clippings with you, you'd find that the teabaggery of August is perfectly predicted by stupidity published in 1989.
I live on top of the epicenter of all wingnuttery.
Dangerous? Perhaps. Perhaps my presence here is a karmic punishment. Because this is the second thing you must know about Alabama: one cannot escape it. Like a black hole, Alabama exerts its own special force on sons and daughters. Many friends have noted that as far as we can get away (as far as the other side of the world) Alabama inevitably sucks us back in. It isn't that we want to return, but that we find ourselves back in the very towns where, as teenagers, we plotted escape.
Wingnuttery produces its own gravity.
It has mass. Like the black hole at the center of a galaxy, it is the circling drain-hole of rational thinking. It is a malevolent intention dressed up in the lamb's skin of piety. It seeks to turn us all into illiterate peasants reciting Bible verses that we don't understand. Wingnuttery is worse than mere evil: it is malignant, aggressive, and aimed directly at the foundations of scientific civilization. It is, in a word, Satanic. Satan lives in Alabama. I live in hell.
They say the devil hides in the details; the state constitution here is the longest legal document in the world. Longer than Moby Dick and the King James Bible put together. Written with the intention of denying education to black children, today it manages only to accomplish the mission of centralizing all decisions in the state capitol where our legislature meets for 30 days a year. Establishing the most regressive tax system in America, our state constitution has been amended more than 800 times.
And there you have it. I make these claims not from ego, but from the sad horror of Dante.
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.
New Swash Zone Members: Matt Osborne of Osborne Ink and Elizabeth Mika of The Middle of Nowhere have accepted invitations to join our community. Matt also writes for the Huffington Post. Check out his latest article, Oh, the Horror! NEA Under Fire for Community Organizing. Elizabeth is a psychologist who shares our concerns for healthcare reform, progressive politics, and social justice. Her diverse interests include the arts, cinema, and literature … all in all, a true cephalopod. Welcome, Matt and Elizabeth.
And an Anthology of Essays: About a month ago, Lorette Luzajic, a Toronto-based writer, contacted me and asked permission to include this post, THE SOUL MURDER OF MICHAEL JACKSON AND THE CULTURE OF VICTIM BLAME, in an anthology of essays. Permission granted. Currently in production, the book will be released sometime in early November.
There is a video making the rounds that is disturbing no matter what direction you are coming from. I am suspicious of the authenticity of this event for several reasons. First, Fox News is all over it, second, it was released just two days before President Obama’s speech to school children and third, they make a point of having the children recite repeatedly, “Barak Hussein Obama” (emphasis mine).
The repeated use of the President’s middle name is, of course, a favorite tactic of right wingnuts who wish to link Obama with Saddam Hussein. Which is as silly as associating anyone named Charlie with multiple murders or looking for an axe in the hand of anyone named Lizzie.
I may be tilting at windmills here – perhaps this is NOT some right wingnut’s hapless scheme. It could be some left wingnut trying to reshape childrens’ minds. Either way, this shameless use of innocent children is an abuse and betrayal of parents’ trust.
The video can be seen HERE and it is the accompanying message and title posted on Youtube which also adds to my suspicions that this was purposefully orchestrated.
If I had children still in school, I would seriously consider home schooling...
Face it, it's been downhill since that socialist Lincoln freed the slaves. In no time at all, we gave women the vote and only a hundred years after that bearded Marxist in the bad hat betrayed the freedom of slave owners, the descendants of those slaves could vote too. The speed of our nation down the slippery slope to Socialism is breathtaking. Only a century after those lazy slaves were allowed basic human rights, the damned Liberals were insisting that God was wrong in separating the races and wanted to allow interracial marriage. There will no stopping this slide and there's no fooling Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) it's all about galloping socialism.
"If there's a push for a socialist society, a society where the foundations of individual rights and liberties are undermined and everybody is thrown together living collectively off of one pot of resources earned by everyone, this is one of the goals they'd have to go to, is same sex marriage, because it has to plow through marriage in order to get to their goal. Not only is it a radical social idea, it is a purely socialist concept, in the final analysis."
Makes your head swim, doesn't it? The incisive and trenchant logic, I mean. Why isn't everyone smart enough to see that denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is our last defense against Socialism? Why aren't they smart enough to see that we need government to take over everything in our lives from our morals to our freedom to our love life in the name of smaller, less intrusive government? Thank God for Iowa!
Maybe Chuck Norris has been kicked in the head once too often. Maybe he deserves another one. He's been barking about being true to the "spirit of our founders" by avoiding the use of a contemporary US flag to wave over their "tea parties" unless the flag is first desecrated by staining it with tea. His op-ed in World Net Daily links to a WND page peddling pre-desecrated flags for $73.50. I don't know if Norris gets a piece of the action.
"If you insist on posting a modern USA flag too, then get one that has been tea stained, to show your solidarity with our founders."
The idea of being lectured to about political philosophies of the Enlightenment and the visions of the somewhat disparate men who drafted our constitution by an intellectual midget like Norris is galling enough but the spectacle of being urged to stain the flag by people who have been clogging up the legislative process for over 40 years trying to make it a crime to deface a flag is too much to let slip by without at least one Wilsonian "you lie!"
One of the things I'm sure our "founders" would agree on is that presidents are not to be chosen or un-chosen by mobs of belligerent barbarians carrying guns in the street. In fact the wisdom of letting the populace have much direct power was much discussed and protected against by the electoral college and the indirect election of senators.
Another thing I suspect they would agree on is that we the people are the founders of a country designed to be a constant work in progress through the institutions designed for that purpose. For someone who does nothing in this world but play a tough guy beating the crap out of stage ruffians in the movies to raise rabble that the rest of us will have to deal with is an outrage. For someone forgetful or dishonest enough to pretend that we don't remember him telling us that Bush was president and must be trusted, followed and honored as such, to now preach revolution is disgusting.
If talking about tea is supposed to remind us that taxation without representation is tyranny, perhaps it will remind some of us that we have representation, but Chuck doesn't like or respect the process that elected them. Is representation by self appointed gangs without election and without taxation their Utopian vision or is it just formless and inchoate rage?
Do we need anything better to remind us that Republican views of civilization and government are entirely situational and entirely opposite when they are in power and when they are thrown out in the street? It's all about winning at any cost and about vengeance at any cost when they lose.
Back in days gone by, daughters were chattel – sold off, in one way shape or form, by their fathers (or other male guardian) to the highest bidder.Daughters were a way for fathers to secure business alliances, gain political favor, etc etc etc.We sometimes euphemistically refer to this as “arranged marriages” – as if men suffered as much as the women in these marriages which were not grounded in the concept of romance or love.In many societies men could seek solace elsewhere . . . .
But NOW – at least in most portions of our world today – we have progressed towards the idea of marriages being grounded in LOVE.Two people fall in love and choose to marry – no bargaining fathers in the wings.Marriage is now a matter of choice.Love, romance are granted free reign.We have further progressed (some might argue regressed) to the point where marriage – as a legal and/or religious bond – is no longer required.Couples may choose to enter into a committed, monogamous relationship grounded in love free from legal contracts.
Thus far I have admittedly been privileging heterosexual definitions of couple-hood.The whole issue of homosexual couple-hood is historically quite different in that it has faced unique prejudices and stigmatizations.However – on the pure concept of the modern economics of love – to which I would now like to turn - I think homosexual couples face similar issues.
We have now come, it would seem, to a place in societal development where we as individuals are free to pursue our hearts desires in the finding of a mate.We may choose whom we most favor.No more forced sharing of beds with total strangers for the sake of procreation.
Now notice I have NOT brought up the subject of SEX.This is deliberate.Though I of course recognize sex as a component of love I am, in this post, concerned with the concept of love – emotionally experienced love – in its most IDEAL form.I realize trying to separate the two may be a fool’s errand, but bear with me . . .
So it would seem that we have reached nirvana – yes?A free marketplace of love wherein we may choose the best mate for a loving relationship. The world is our oyster.Yeah!
Um – yes – well – how exactly does one do this . . . . . . . . ?How does one determined which shell actually shelters a pearl?
When we need a new car we go to a dealership – or two – or three.We haggle, bargain – go for test drives – eventually choosing the best model that suits us.We strive for the best deal.Well, ok – does this approach work for choosing a mate?Certainly not! You cry.How ridiculous!Love is about the heart . . . it just happens . . . when the time is right . . . like in all of the poems, sonnets . . . it's just . . . (do I hear violins warbling?)
Yes, well – BUT - It’s impossible to spend any time on-line these days without seeing a vast array of dating sites or personals sites advertising their services like car dealerships.In recent years I’ve seen sites advertised for Christians, for Muslims, for seniors, for homosexuals, for wealthy people, and even for those seeking Russian brides (no kidding!).All one has to do, it would seem, is to choose the correct web-site – our modern day matchmakers – then program in one’s personal criteria for the perfect mate & the rest is relationship bliss!!
Hold on – criteria?What the hell does that have to do with love?Can love be so programmed?And thus bought & sold as can other things in a free market economy?If so – how is this progress?Speaking from the female perspective . . . ok – so we are no longer being pimped for economic gain by our fathers but we can now pay, and thereby provide economic gain to, these on-line services to do it for us?If this is true – how hilarious that men are now paying to be pimped!!Progress??Is love now being pimped like sex?
Now to take a step back – not all loving relationships these days are the product of these latest money-making, love-marketing services.There are people who actually meet their true loves in the simple everyday course of their daily lives.People for whom the sentimental idealism expressed in the song
“Some Enchanted Evening”
You will see a stranger
You will see a stranger, across a crowded room
And somehow you’ll know
You’ll know even then . . . .
[South Pacific]
holds true.However . . .
. . . it would seem, based on simple economics, that for many people this is not the case.That for many people the love marketplace is the only way to seek – and perhaps find – love.Otherwise – would there be so many on-line sites peddling their wares?E-harmony has even made the jump to television marketing – that takes a lot of money.It is a sign of that company’s success at generating revenue based on its pitching of the notion that it can provide a channel towards love.So clearly there are many who sign on for help seeking a loving mate.
If this seems like a cynical post – it actually isn’t.I suspect that many people involved in the free marketplace of love (not sex) are sincerely trying to find love, someone to share their life with.However – in terms of human development, societal development – I find the question of “progress” with respect to the pursuit of love fascinating – especially in light of human history’s less than enlightened past practices with regard to the subject.
We have gained much by simply gaining the right to CHOOSE.But HOW to choose or how to FIND someone to choose is, apparently, a hurdle, a stumbling ground for the actual fulfillment of the CHOICE that we may now freely embrace.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker find me a match
Find me a find, catch me a catch
Night after night in the dark I’m alone
So find me a match of my own
[Fiddler on the Roof]
At this stage in human development it would seem that offering up the concept of FREELY CHOOSING someone to LOVE is like dangling a bunch of grapes in front of thirsty, hungry Tantalus’ nose yet just out of his reach.
