On, Wisconsin!

So, I'm clicking through Time Magazine yesterday, and I come across this column by Joe Klein, regarding the Wisconsin trade union debate. Now, I don't always disagree with Klein, but this column was just a revelation to me.

Revolutions everywhere--in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they're protesting against it.

Actually, it sounds to me like the public employees in Wisconsin are demonstrating so that they can keep getting their voices heard, and so the government doesn't gain more control over their lives. Really, it sounds kind of like "democracy" to me.

But maybe I'm misreading the situation up there. Go on, Joe.

I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process?

Isn't it interesting That the Senate Republicans want to force through a bill to strip away decades of rights, and only allow it three days of debate? Why is it that they're in such a hurry again?

An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that.

Absolutely right! There was an election! And because of that, you people have to lose your civil rights! That's just logic!

(You know, it's funny. I've been hearing that quote from the Right a lot lately. "Elections have consequences." It's funny, though. You'd think that if they really believed it, they'd have been saying it after the 2008 elections, wouldn't you? But I digress.)

There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter.

Uhh... Joe? Isn't that the point here? The unions want to be able to renegotiate as needed. The governor wants to take that right away from them.

Oh, yeah. And by the way, "contracts can be terminated"? (I reworded that a little; the double negative bothered me.) Yes, they can. But, being a contract, the courts get to step in, and if it turns out that one side is not "acting in good faith," they get to face penalties for being a lying bag of douche.

That's the point of a contract, isn't it?

And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do.

Well, yeah. When you factor in all the private sector employees who don't even have heath insurance, sure. (That's about 46 million people nationwide, incidentally.)

But here's the point you're missing, Joey. "Governor Scott Walker's basic requests" - what he's asking for now. Because he's also taking away any ability to argue later, when he gets completely unreasonable.

And he will. See, Scott Walker has always been against unions. He longs for the days when the worker had no rights, and the employer could pay slave wages and fire for no reason. It's been a dream of his for years.

But again, I digress.

When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year)...

OK, hang on here for just a minute.

You're saying that thirty years ago, a janitor was paid almost twice what he is now? Because the current median salary for a janitor in New York is $33,483. And in 30 years, without adjusting for inflation, janitors are earning 44% less than they did in the 80's?

Man, that union sucks!

(Quick math check - 60,000 - 33,483 = 26,517 / 60,000 = 44.195% - does that sound right to everybody?)

I'll skip a little here, while Klein spends about a paragraph whining about how mean unions are. I mean, I could point out the backbreaking demands of the industrial Barons of the 1800s, leading to the formation of labor unions, which were opposed by those privileged elite millionaires who hired thugs to yadda yadda yadda...

Nobody cares. Rich people want to stay rich, and don't care who they have to destroy to do that. If you don't know this history, you're probably too stupid to care.

But that does bring us to this:

Industrial unions are organized against the might and greed of ownership. Public employees unions are organized against the might and greed...of the public?

Uh... no, Joey, that would be the government. You know, like millionaire governor Scott Walker and his billionaire backers. How is that hard to understand?

But then Joey just gets stupid.

Despite their questionable provenance, public unions can serve an important social justice role, guaranteeing that a great many underpaid workers--school bus drivers, janitors (outside of New York City), home health care workers--won't be too severely underpaid. That role will be kept intact in Wisconsin. In any given negotiation, I'm rooting for the union to win the highest base rates of pay possible...and for management to win the least restrictive work rules and guidelines governing how much truly creative public employees can be paid.

Oh, god. I swear we've covered this. Read back up to the top. I'll wait.

OK, now, since Walker wants to remove any ability of the unions to bargain for anything except base salaries... what the hell are you saying here? That they'll win on topics that they can't even argue about anymore?

You're an idiot, Klein. In fact, let's go further than that.

The basic theme here is that public employees are overpaid. According to a study by Jeffrey Keefe, professor of Labor and Employment Relations at Rutgers, public employees are compensated 3.75% less than similarly skilled and educated private-sector counterparts.

And, in fact, Scott Walker is trying to say that he has to do all this to "save" Wisconsin, to plug a big hole in the budget. But you know the funny part? Wisconsin was doing fine (in fact, they had a budget surplus) until Scott Walker became governor, and created a crisis by giving the state's money away to his cronies.

So, basically, Walker is a lying, thieving bag of fuck, with all the integrity of a rabid weasel.

And here you are, Joey, supporting him. What does that make you?

Union Maid

I looked forward to enjoying retirement - to kicking off my shoes and watching my tentacles wriggle in silhouette against the glare of late night TV without a care in the world. What Wisconsin taught me:  The battles for social progress won by my forbearers are fragile and tenuous at best. The social safety net, public education, environmental protection, Planned Parenthood, decent wages - all under siege.  It seems the Kochroaches are hell bent on reversing civilization itself.  Hells, bells, they are even turning back the clock on evolution as Bagheads and Beckheads, devoid of conscience, slither legless on their stomachs.

I hope this YouTube video will remind our progeny how their forbearers fought the good fight.

The Republican War Against Women

As a member of MoveOn.org, I receive regular email on issues of vital importance. This one can't wait so I am posting it here and now:

10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids. 

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life. 

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working. 

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country. 

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Motes and beams

There was a wicked messenger
From Eli he did come
With a mind that multiplied
The smallest matter.

-Bob Dylan-

_______________________

To distort the importance of a matter, to exaggerate little things, perhaps to draw attention away from big things, to belabor the significance of a problem long past: making a mountain out of a molehill. If you need to elevate this common human tendency to the level of psychology, call it magnification. Call it hyperbole. Call it catastrophization. Otherwise call it politics. It's how governments handle problems both real and invented. High purpose, Liberal or Conservative; it usually ends in hyperbole and fraudulent accounting.

Dismayed at how may people are dying in automobiles? One might expect a focus on the areas where most of them occur, but once the problem is taken up by zealots, hyperbolized and dressed up as catastrophic, we have unbearable pressure to apply oppressive speed limits to the safest areas while doing essentially nothing about those areas where the bulk of fatalities occur. As crime declines, we make every next one a bigger problem, focus on the most spectacular and base our estimations of the whole on a freak occurrence. It's human nature and it's also a human weakness to be exploited.

But there are more sinister applications. Take the constant carping about how trade unions are harming our economy, now that their membership and power are at low tide. One might infer that eliminating them entirely is a better description of the hidden intent.

Take the heavy emphasis on medical liability claims as a way to reduce the accelerating cost of health care. They account for a tiny fraction of the whole and seem to be the whole and sole solution offered by one particular political party. Never mind the mountain, look here instead. A cynic might suggest a motive having to do with benefiting from high medical costs.

Spending cuts. We need spending cuts and you're crazy if you don't think we need spending cuts so lets propose spending cuts and lets keep cackling and gobbling and chanting about cutting the little things so that no one notices where the money is going and why the income can't keep up with it. Never mind that mountain LOOK AT THAT MOLEHILL!

So what are we told we have to cut? In general we're told about programs that aren't as much financially significant as doctrinally anathematic. NPR has to go, particularly now that it's credibility exceeds that of Fox. It may cost the average American pennies a year, but never mind, it has to go. The EPA of course since it retards the wanton rape and pillage of corporate vikings. Gingrich wants it dead. Planned Parenthood: it's offensive to religious tyrants -- it has to go.

Hyperbole and fraudulent accounting, Let's cut the debt by .001% and make things that are cheap seem prohibitively expensive and those trillions and trillions we didn't make from cutting taxes and those trillions we blew on unnecessary wars obsolete weapons and fraudulent procurement? Don't look at that, look at school lunches!

Stop Glenn Beck: New Petition Letter Addressed to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes

As part of an ongoing effort to pressure Fox News into pulling the plug on the Glenn Beck Show, here is a standard petition letter addressed to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Please feel free to copy the text of this letter and paste it into your letterhead - adjusting type size and font style as needed (11 or 12 points should suffice):

Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO, Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036

(Date)

Dear Mr. Ailes:

After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and thirteen injured, you offered this appeal for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”

Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed.  Glenn Beck has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech.  The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck means any citizen - Democrat, Independent, or Republican - can be defamed in public and targeted for persecution.  Beck’s messages provoke unstable persons to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts:

Prison Term for Man Who Threatened Speaker Pelosi:

Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News

Renowned Professor Terrorized After Glenn Beck Broadcasts

League of Women Voters Targeted by Glenn Beck Fans

Two California Highway Patrolmen Shot by Glenn Beck Fan

Three Pittsburgh Policemen Killed by Glenn Beck Follower

There is no plausible deniability that can wipe the blood off Beck’s hands or absolve the Fox News Channel of responsibility for reckless incitement.  Shooting sprees, murder, malicious defamations and infamous provocations … these have no place in a free society.  When toxic television threatens public safety, all citizens of all persuasions have grounds for alarm.

Glenn Beck has crossed boundaries that should never be crossed.  It is time to pull the plug on the Glenn Beck Show before more people are terrorized, injured and killed.

Sincerely yours,
(name and signature)

The letter is short enough to fit on a single page (word count=265). Within a few days, please look for another petition letter addressed to Fox News advertisers (i.e. the boycott letter). A startup list of advertisers will be included with this post.

Abeckalypse Now

Why would a news organization retain the services of someone who calls their veracity into constant question and may actually cost them money by making advertisers queasy and uncomfortable at the flow of misinformation and distortion and psychodrama?

Well, perhaps one of the ways a chronic failure in the prophecy business covers up an unblemished record of being wrong is to maintain the distraction that theatrical extremists provide. The Fox Faithful aren't likely to reflect as much on such failures when their ears are filled with brand new, fresh and fabricated outrages from their stable of performance artists.

Why, for instance, allow speculation and comparison with our failed attempts at nation building and regime changing so vehemently supported by the GOP News Outlet with spontaneous and indigenous and possibly more successful attempts we had nothing to do with other than supporting the status quo? If Egypt moves toward democracy without and in spite of American economic and military assistance to a dictator, people might become cynical.

So keep them busy with visions of the Apocalypse and associate it with people exercising their endowed right to assemble, to speak out, to petition peacefully. Find a video clip where hazy air, a dirty lens and bright lights create lens flare. If you're a photographer, if you have aging eyes, you know what it is, but if you're a sheep in the Fox Flock, it's an apocalyptic horseman:



You get paid actors to report this idiocy with a straight face. You get Glenn Beck to howl insanely about a Muslim Caliphate to the illiterates who buzz about him like flies. You use everything you can to keep the audience focused on the moment and to make the moment seem perilous. You do anything you can to keep them from remembering that they've been on the wrong side of every prediction, whether dire or deliriously optimistic. If you run out of smoke and mirrors, dust and streetlights, you just make it up.

It's a bit like a Ponzi scheme. You need new lies coming in to cover the old ones, but sooner or later, no matter how gullible the patsies are, it blows up. It becomes an Abeckalypse. And they are gullible. According to a University study, Fox watchers will believe anything and the more they watch, the stupider they get.

Help Pull the Plug on Glenn Beck

After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and thirteen injured, including Congresswoman Giffords, Fox News President Roger Ailes appealed for civility:  “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”

Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed.  If anything, Fox News has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech.  Fevered hysteria and conspiratorial fear mongering on national television are not harmless.

How quickly we forget the lessons of history. The bogeymen of 1930s anti-Semitism that morphed into the bogeymen of 1950s McCarthyism has morphed again into the mainstreaming of Glenn Beck Militia Theater. The message is clear: Glenn Beck wants to extort your silence, and anyone who refuses to capitulate will be targeted and stalked:

Glenn Beck, Self-Appointed "Progressive Hunter"
The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck and Fox News means any citizen - Democrat, Centrist, or Republican - can be slandered in public and targeted for persecution.  Beck pitches his messages at unhinged misfits who are most likely to act on impulse, and events have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts. There is no plausible deniability that can remove this blood from Beck’s hands:

Man Shoots Two California Highway Patrol Officers:

Accused Gunman Acknowledges Influence of Glenn Beck

Three Pittsburgh Police Officers Ambushed and Killed:

Gunman Posted Glenn Beck Video on White Supremacist Website

Federal Prison for Man Who Threatened Senator Murray:

Glenn Beck Cast Spell on Accused Man, Says Family

Federal Prison for Man Who Threatened House Speaker Pelosi:

Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News

Glenn Beck Fans Target Legendary Scholar with Death Threats

Death Threats Against League of Women Voters Linked to Glenn Beck

Murders, shooting sprees, domestic terrorism, private citizens hiding in fear, infamous intimidations and provocations broadcast on national television - all linked to Glenn Beck - enough is enough!  When toxic television threatens public safety, it concerns everyone.  Even prominent Republicans are becoming alarmed:

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum:

“[Glenn Beck] such people do terrible damage”

Former Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner: 

“the role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality”

National correspondent for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg:

“a classic case of anti-Semitic dog-whistling”

It is time to pull the plug on Glenn Beck and serve notice to Fox News that partisan hate speech has no place in a free society. The strongest message you can send is to vote your pocketbook. Write letters to Fox News advertisers; tell them you will no longer patronize their products and services; and keep boycotting sponsors of Fox News until these outrageous partisan witch-hunts have stopped. Removing Glenn Beck from the airwaves will save lives.

Resources:
Visit the Drop Fox Website Here
Visit the Fox News Boycott Website Here
Visit the Stop Beck Website Here

Endorsements:
Captain Fogg, Sheria, BJ, Octopus, Squatlo, Sue, Nance, TnLib, TomCat, Truth 101, Maleeper, Green Eagle, Kay, Shaw Kenawe, RockyNC.

UPDATE: To help spread this message, I am placing this article in the public domain, which means anyone may use it freely without credit or attribution. If you want a copy of the complete text (including imbedded links and html code), please send a request via email to swashzone@gmail.com. Finally, a note of special recognition to The Legendary Spocko who taught us how to take on Big Media by boycotting their sponsors.

Egypt - a brief look back

You know, with as short an attention span as the average American has, you'd think that the recent uprising in Egypt would have disappeared from the radar. After all, the first major protests against Mubarak started on January 25, and his government was overthrown in two and a half weeks.

And now, here we are, with a military council in power, saying that they'll ensure an orderly transition to an elected government. It's over, and American Idol is on. Why are people still paying attention?

Maybe it's the cognitive dissonance. We like democracy, but only on our terms.

Muhammed Hosni Sayyid Mubarak is not a nice man. He ruled Egypt for thirty years, primarily because the Egyptian constitution set him to be "elected" by a referendum of the Assembly, and nobody could run against him. When he grudgingly allowed a "democratic election" in 2005, he "won" by 89% of the vote, in an election so openly rigged that the Egyptians rioted in the streets. Mubarak's response? He had his chief political rival, Ayman Nour, convicted to five years hard labor.

(What Nour was claiming was, of course, totally unfair: of course you buy votes in poorer neighborhoods - that's just basic economics; and if security forces prevented people from voting for opposition candidates, sometimes with simple beatings, sometimes with tear gas, rubber bullets, and even live bullets - well, that's just high spirits on the part of patriots, right?)

Mubarak's government openly persecuted political opponents, and was a willing participant in Bush's policy of extraordinary rendition* (often orchestrated directly by his vice president, Omar Suleiman, who might have ended up in charge of Egypt had the the Egyptian people not opposed the "orderly transition" supported by the US and European governments).

Mubarak's police and security forces were blatant in their abuses:

In one video, a woman is forced to strip and is abused by a police officer and in another Egyptian mini-bus driver, Emad el-Kabir... is shown screaming on the floor as officers sodomize him with a wooden pole. The police then sent the video to el-Kabir’s friends to humiliate him. These videos remove the abstract quality of the debate over U.S. torture policies, both in terms of waterboarding and extraordinary renditions.

Both of the videos were put on Youtube and have been seen around the world. What is most striking about the el-Kabir video is that the police were so unconcerned about disclosure of torture that they sent it to the victim’s friends. It was only due to Youtube and public outcry that the officers were given relatively short prison sentences.

The Mubarak family amassed billions in crooked deals during his time with the government (both as a politician and earlier, as a high-ranking army officer).

The notably corrupt* Egyptian government bears some striking parallels to Iraq under Saddam Hussein: an almost cartoonish dictator (who was grooming one of this two sons for succession), security forces kidnapping people off the streets for rape and torture, corruption throughout all levels of government. But the American right wing cheered when Saddam was brought down. Why are they sobbing and clutching their pearls now that Mubarak has been ousted?

Is it because we weren't involved with the overthrow of this government?

Well, let's consider some of the people we did help put into power: the Shah of Iran; the Somoza family of Nicaragua; "Papa Doc" Duvalier of Haiti; General Suharto of Indonesia. (This ignores all the dictators America has helped keep in power.)

Maybe allowing other countries to decide their own fate is the best policy.

____________

* Note: Microsoft Word documents

CHARLES DARWIN, 12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882

Evolution Made Us All from Ben Hillman on Vimeo

h/t Pharyngula


And here is a chart showing those countries with the lowest and highest numbers of people who accept Evolution as a fact:

h/t Green Eagle

Thank youTurkey! Otherwise the good ole USofA would be the bottom feeder.

For a technologically advanced country, how can the USA be so backward? We and radical Islamists share the ignorant ideology that Evolution is only a "theory." (Actually, one of our presidents, RWR, shared that belief as well. Oh, Dog!) And several Tea Party candidates proudly raised their hands in the last presidential campaign when asked how many DID NOT accept Evolution as fact.

That alone should disqualify any man or woman from holding public office. We should have some basic requirements for the leader of the free world, not the least of which should be intelligence.

Evolution is a fact. Period.

Anyone saying otherwise should not be considered fit to hold important political office.

It's time for some New Rules

New Rule:

If everyone wants to insist that we make no more comparisons between raging right wing hate shouters and Hitler, they're going to have to get their candidates to stop doing those Hitler impersonations.

Of course he can - he's rich!

(Since this is the first Sunday in February, I should probably have some kind of Superbowl post. Of course, if I watched football, that would be a lot easier to do; but at least I can write about something football-related, so maybe this qualifies as Superbowl-adjacent.)

You know, it's funny. A lot of people complain about the independent weeklies, those free papers that pay for themselves using advertising - I've been told that they're nothing more than a "free rag you pull out of a box on a street corner... that is, if you can find it among the brochures for escort services."

(Honest. We'll get to the football in a second. Relax!)

Personally, I've got nothing against these smaller independents. I've found that their style tends to be more readable than a lot of the "mainstream media," with a distinctly local flavor, and their reporters have been known to beat the more conventional news sources to a story. (For example, the place where I pulled that last quote is a fine example.)

Plus, they're free. My favorite price.

Although I lived near Washington, DC many years ago, I never saw the Washington City Paper. Dan Snyder, on the other hand, the owner of the Washington Redskins, apparently did see this story by Dave McKenna in this particular paper, and seeing it apparently made him unhappy. So unhappy that he's suing them.

(See? Football. Happy now?)

Now, Danny had some time on his hands. He always does, this time of year; the Redskins haven't made it to the Superbowl since he bought them in 1999. (Huh... I wonder if that might have something to do with why DC residents hate the man...)

Anyway, first he sent a couple of boys around to threaten the owners of the paper ; you know, to point out "Hey, nice little place you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it, wouldn't it?"

Of course, by "boys," I mean Daniel P. Donovan, general counsel for the Washington Redskins. And by "threaten," I mean... well, no, that's exactly what I mean. To wit:

We presume that defending such litigation would not be a rational strategy for an investment fund such as yours. Indeed the cost of litigation would presumably quickly outstrip the asset value of the Washington City Paper.

The paper put the entire three page letter on line - you know, in the spirit of full disclosure. And reading it, you can see that it's a good thing that this Danny got a nice cushy job sweeping "drunk and disorderly" charges under his plush shag carpeting; I don't think he was at the top of his class. (If nothing else, failing "Constitutional Law" has to drag that grade point average down a bit, doesn't it?)

OK, Dan, let's go over it one more time.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See that part I bolded there, Danny? Read it again.

So Atalaya Capital Management (the owners of the Washington City Paper) put their lawyer on it, who probably fired off his reply over lunch; it wasn't like he had to try hard. And again, the letter mysteriously made it on line ("No, really. I don't know how that keeps happening..."). It's a straightforward smackdown. (And only 3 pages long, too - you should check it out.)

We encourage you to consult with First Amendment counsel in regard to your claims and would be happy to discuss the matter with such counsel at any time. I expect that, with the advice of counsel and upon further consideration, you will agree that continued debate over the relevant law serves little productive purpose.

Or in other words, "yo, counselor! Suck on 'dis!"

But Danny and Danny didn't take the hint. And they filed suit.

Now, the majority of this 11-page filing can be boiled down into "Waah! He said mean things about me!" Much of the press, on the other hand, has gone toward one claim, itself almost libelous, that the cover art, of a defaced picture of Snyder, was "anti-Semitic."

Well, as the paper explained it:

For the record: The story didn't mention Snyder's religion at all. And the illustration is meant to resemble the type of scribbling that teenagers everywhere have been using to deface photos for years. The image of Snyder doesn't look like an "anti-Semitic caricature"—it looks like a devil.

But we at City Paper take accusations of anti-Semitism seriously—in part because many of us are Jewish, including staffers who edited the story and designed the cover.

(If anyone was really interested, I could explain why the traditional representation of the Devil was intended to look Jewish, but let's move on.)

But, since libel requires specific allegations, Danny's "lawyers" (let's assume they were lawyers, although the evidence is a little shaky at this point) dug up four. Of course, the internet is a wonderful place to do research on stuff like this, and the Paper's lawyers have found all their work done for them. To wit:

a. that "Dan Snyder... got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications"

Well, let's check this AP story from Friday, April 27, 2001, entitled Verizon fined $3.1 million for telephone slamming:

Verizon and its former marketing agency, at the time owned by Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, were fined $3.1 million for illegally switching Florida customers' long distance telephone service without authorization.

The state Attorney General's Office said representatives of Bethesda, Md.-based Snyder Communications forged thousands of customer signatures to switch them to service provided by GTE, which is now Verizon.

Investigators also found GTE employees forged signatures and "used deceptive tactics" to get customers to switch service.

OK, that's one. What's next?

b. that Mr. Snyder caused Agent Orange to be used to destroy trees "protected by the National Park Service" on "federally protected lands," a matter about which previously published reports have been publicly corrected

Wow. See, that would be cool, if it bore any relation to what the story actually said. Which was:

That’s the Dan Snyder who... made a great view of the Potomac River for himself by going all Agent Orange on federally protected lands

I mean, you understand the word "metaphor," right? It's not that anybody used Agent Orange, it's that somebody cut down a bunch of trees. You know, like in this this 2006 Washington Post story:

A high-ranking National Park Service official improperly helped Washington Redskins owner Daniel M. Snyder broker a deal to cut down more than 130 trees on a hillside between his Potomac estate and the C&O Canal, according to a report by the Interior Department inspector general's office.

OK, that's two.

c. that Mr. Snyder bragged that his wealth came from diabetes and cancer victims

Oooh... harsh. Of course, the writer was referring to his own story, where he was reporting on this video from 2000.

Snyder replies that at Snyder Communications, they had "weekly meetings" to come up with a list of what groups to market goods and services to.

"We'd make jokes, each niche would be a $5 million niche, and we'd go after each one," Snyder says.

Greenfield asks for examples of his targeting decisions.

"We were looking at trend lines," Snyder says. "We saw that the aging baby boomer demographics were coming on strong. That meant there's going to be a lot more diabetic patients, a lot more cancer patients, etc. How do we capture those market segments?"

The first 20 times or so that I saw the clip, I had pretty much the same reaction: "Uhhhh....Did Dan Snyder just brag to a crowd of college kids that he looks at folks on the business end of diabetes and cancer as a target market? As members of '$5 million niche?'"

And then I'd rewind the clip. And, dang if Snyder wouldn't say it all over again!

So let me type it again: "That meant there's going to be a lot more diabetic patients, a lot more cancer patients, etc." Snyder says. "How do we capture those market segments?"

Repeat after me: Yucky! I mean, sure, big business is a cold realm. But it takes a special kind of guy to boast about exploiting the downtrodden in front of a roomful of young strangers and TV cameras.

Aa-a-a-and next!

d. that Snyder was "tossed off" the Six Flags' board of directors

Ouch. That one had to hurt. I mean, Danny even has a witness that the whole departure was amicable and both sides were happy. So where does the truth lie?

How about in the actual filing from Six Flags at the time?

In addition, Mr. Shapiro shall serve as an initial director and shall be entitled to appoint the remaining director; provided , however , that such remaining director shall not be Daniel M. Snyder without the consent of the Majority Backstop Purchasers.

Yeah, that's exactly what they'd say during an amicable breakup, huh?

Really, what all this proves is that, by all appearances, Danny Snyder would seem to be a world-class douche, and hates it when people point this out.

Of course, this is only my opinion. I could be wrong. I freely admit that, and would submit this final paragraph as evidence of my fair-minded treatment of this situation into any court filing.

You're a good man Hosni Mubarak

"I also think there comes a time for everybody when it's time to hang it up and move on"

Said Former Vice President Dick Cheney. It would seem that he didn't feel the end of his term in office was such a time for him, smoothly transitioning from denouncing all critics in an official and perhaps illegal fashion to doing as much as a private citizen. He's only moved out, not moved on.

He was of course referring to the apparent end game of Hosni Mubarak, a "Good man" says he.

"he's been a good friend and ally to the United States, and we need to remember that"

That's a statement hard to remark upon so I won't. I'll only add the good Mr. Mubarak to the list of rogues our government has supported for similar reasons through the years, choosing "stability" over every other consideration. Like many administrations from Reagan, whose anniversary he was celebrating, to that of Cheney and Bush, we've provided weapons to tyrants while the people suffered from want. We've overthrown democratic choices and prevented elections and installed monsters and looked the other way at nauseating atrocities simply to serve our appetites.

Yes, Mubarak did what we paid him to do and you'll note that those are American tanks patrolling the streets, American jets overhead. He maintained an uncomfortable peace with Israel and helped us punish oil-rich Iraq. He did resist the pressure from fundamentalist Theocrats and he helped us to apply torture methods even our own flimsy consciences wouldn't allow -- and we paid him to do it and didn't place many strings on our largess. He was a good man.

Cheney as an unhealthy old man, younger but much sicker than Mubarak and I'm sure we can look ahead to other, not too distant days and the gathering of other people telling us Dick Cheney was a "good man" just like the other good and bloody handed friends and allies. Let the circle be unbroken.

"Those who wait on the Lord will soar on wings like eagles, and they will run and not be weary, and they will walk and not faint."

I don't have to look for evidence that the United States of America isn't united, unless you consider enraged confusion to be a uniting factor. A Pew polling report last year showed that only 34 percent of Americans think Obama is a Christian. I have no idea how many Americans like me, don't give a damn if he's a Zoroastrian as long as he keeps his scriptures under his pillow and not under mine. His religion or lack thereof is no more significant to me than his favorite basketball team and indeed the private beliefs of most of our better presidents have rarely been a factor in their official lives.

Of course those who wish to destabilize and polarize what's left of the informed electorate for reasons of partisan gain are happy to make an issue of it and for them it's indeed a game with few rules and only one strategy: attack, attack, attack. Prominent amongst that breed of snakes is of course, Fox News, who can depend on a base of religious chauvinists and racist bigots who know less about the certainties they profess than their enthusiasm might indicate.

Take the recently manufactured "scandal" about the inaccuracy of Obama's reading of Isaiah 40:31 at the National Prayer Breakfast this week. Fox Followers can't really be expected to know much about the archaeological history of Isaiah, the variations between extant scrolls or that chapters 40 - 66 seem to have been written about two centuries after Isaiah himself, but apparently they have so little regard for the knowledge of America's scholarship that they also don't expect us to remember that there are other and better translations than the King James version, some of which have incorporated what has been found at Qumran and most of all: that the original certainly isn't in English. President Obama was simply quoting the very popular New International Version. Some scandal.

One can hope that these fragments scraped from the bottom of the GOP slime barrel, indicate that the barrel is empty. Sad to say, it's very easy to make a fool of one's self in America, but it's still difficult to get Americans to notice it amidst the sound and fury.

Why Obama has to get Egypt right

As a supporter of George Soros and his work, I receive regular email from his various foundations.   Earlier today, I received the text of an article by George Soros that appeared in this morning's Washington Post.  It is worth sharing here.

By George Soros

(Thursday, February 3, 2011)  Revolutions usually start with enthusiasm and end in tears. In the case of the Middle East, the tears could be avoided if President Obama stands firmly by the values that got him elected. Although American power and influence in the world have declined, our allies and their armies look to us for direction. These armies are strong enough to maintain law and order as long as they stay out of politics; thus the revolutions can remain peaceful. That is what the United States should insist on while encouraging corrupt and repressive rulers who are no longer tolerated by their people to step aside and allow new leaders to be elected in free and fair elections.

That is the course that the revolution in Tunisia is taking. Tunisia has a relatively well-developed middle class, women there enjoy greater rights and opportunities than in most Muslim countries, and the failed regime was secular in character. The prospects for democratic change are favorable.

Egypt is more complex and, ultimately, more influential, which is why it is so important to get it right. The protesters are very diverse, including highly educated and common people, young and old, well-to-do and desperately poor. While the slogans and crowds in Tahrir Square are not advancing a theocratic agenda at all, the best-organized political opposition that managed to survive in that country's repressive environment is the Muslim Brotherhood. In free elections, the Brotherhood is bound to emerge as a major political force, though it is far from assured of a majority.

Some have articulated fears of adverse consequences of free elections, suggesting that the Egyptian military may seek to falsify the results; that Israel may be adamantly opposed to a regime change; that the domino effect of extremist politics spreading to other countries must be avoided; and that the supply of oil from the region could be disrupted. These notions constitute the old conventional wisdom about the Middle East - and need to be changed, lest Washington incorrectly put up resistance to or hesitate in supporting transition in Egypt.

That would be regrettable. President Obama personally and the United States as a country have much to gain by moving out in front and siding with the public demand for dignity and democracy. This would help rebuild America's leadership and remove a lingering structural weakness in our alliances that comes from being associated with unpopular and repressive regimes. Most important, doing so would open the way to peaceful progress in the region. The Muslim Brotherhood's cooperation with Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate who is seeking to run for president, is a hopeful sign that it intends to play a constructive role in a democratic political system. As regards contagion, it is more likely to endanger the enemies of the United States - Syria and Iran - than our allies, provided that they are willing to move out ahead of the avalanche.

The main stumbling block is Israel. In reality, Israel has as much to gain from the spread of democracy in the Middle East as the United States has. But Israel is unlikely to recognize its own best interests because the change is too sudden and carries too many risks. And some U.S. supporters of Israel are more rigid and ideological than Israelis themselves. Fortunately, Obama is not beholden to the religious right, which has carried on a veritable vendetta against him. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is no longer monolithic or the sole representative of the Jewish community. The main danger is that the Obama administration will not adjust its policies quickly enough to the suddenly changed reality.

I am, as a general rule, wary of revolutions. But in the case of Egypt, I see a good chance of success. As a committed advocate of democracy and open society, I cannot help but share in the enthusiasm that is sweeping across the Middle East. I hope President Obama will expeditiously support the people of Egypt. My foundations are prepared to contribute what they can. In practice, that means establishing resource centers for supporting the rule of law, constitutional reform, fighting corruption and strengthening democratic institutions in those countries that request help in establishing them, while staying out of those countries where such efforts are not welcome.

The writer is chairman of the Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Foundations, which support democracy and human rights in more than 70 countries.

Update: Egyptian journalist Shaheera Amin of the state-run news channel, Nile TV, was on her way to work when she heard the protestors and decided to resign.  Full video here.

Update 2: The right-wing response to the turmoil in Egypt is almost as disturbing as Mubarak’s henchmen in the streets of Cairo roughing up news reporters. Right wing fear mongers are playing the Obama-is-a-secret-Muslim card. Here is Frank Gaffney accusing Homeland Security Advisor John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano of acting as “stealth jihadists:”

The Very Wealth Man - Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Saw this coming...

Well, our noble GOP congresscritters are certainly showing their idiot colors since they reconvened this month.

See, in their continuing efforts to do anything except get jobs for American workers, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) introduced a bill, which currently has 174 cosponsors, called the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" which Rep Boehner (R-Sunkist) has called "one of our highest legislative priorities."

Because, you know, fuck the two to five million people who haven't had a job in over two years and no longer qualify for government relief (oh, and by the way, these are people who employers won't even look at any more). Those bastards'll be dead soon enough. And even if they survive, they aren't gonna vote, right?

So this New Jersey nimrod threw his antiabortion bill together without paying attention to a couple of little details. Fortunately, Nick Baumann from Mother Jones Magazine took the time to poke it with a stick, and discovered that it's kind of an abortion all on its own.

Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Given that the bill also would forbid the use of tax benefits to pay for abortions, that 13-year-old's parents wouldn't be allowed to use money from a tax-exempt health savings account (HSA) to pay for the procedure. They also wouldn't be able to deduct the cost of the abortion or the cost of any insurance that paid for it as a medical expense.

...Since 1976, federal law has prohibited the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions except in the cases of rape, incest, and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the woman. But since last year, the anti-abortion side has become far more aggressive in challenging this compromise. They have been pushing to outlaw tax deductions for insurance plans that cover abortion, even if the abortion coverage is never used.

(...)

Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes... As for the incest exception, the bill would only allow federally funded abortions if the woman is under 18.

Yeah, well, even a compromise like that might get killed at the local level. The Arkansas Senate passed a bill to prohibit federal funding for abortions offered through an insurance exchange except where the life of the mother is at risk.

The bill's sponsor, Republican Senator Cecile Bledsoe, ignored calls to amend the bill to cover rape and incest.

Sweet Jesus Christ on a telephone poll, it's now officially time for all satirists to hang it up. Reality has just made it redundant to say things like "Well, in Arkansas, if you outlaw incest and rape, the state just disappears."

I don't know where to go after that. Except to ask if anybody's bothered to trace the family trees of Cecile and her "husband" James, just to see if it takes two generations before they intertwine, or three.

But hey, let's ignore every other problem in the country, and get back to making abortion illegal again! (Ignore that woman behind the curtain with the coat hanger!)

I'm just curious, though. Could somebody please check this list of co-sponsors, and see just how many ran on "the gub'mint is stickin' their nose inta' our lives too dang much!" It might be interesting to see them try to reconcile those two positions.

Right-Wing Harassment of Liberal Bloggers

For seven years, our good friend Libby of The Impolitic has been writing a column for the Detroit News. Hers is a thankless task because she is a token liberal at a right-wing rag, which means she is also a frequent target for harassment. On any given day, trolls will gang up on her, fabricate lies from thin air, lift phrases out of context and misquote her, and assassinate her character. Ugly stuff! To make matters worse, the folks who run Detroit News hold liberal bloggers to a different standard, which means rapacious right-wingers get to ride roughshod and rampant while comments from liberals are sometimes deleted. The latest example is Libby’s post, Another 'Lone Wolf' attempts domestic terrorism, about the arrest of the would-be bomber of a Detroit mosque. Predictably, the rabble ganged up on Libby … shamelessly attributing "anti-Bush liberalism" as the motive behind the madman. In Libby's defense, I left this comment:

Libby,
I referenced your links including the Detroit News coverage of this story, and NOWHERE DO ANY OF THESE SOURCES MENTION ANYTHING about the partisan leanings of the accused. Nowhere is the name “Bush” even mentioned. Yet there are three critics below who fabricate stuff for only one purpose: To HARRASS ANY LIBERAL in this forum. Notice the same bogus claim and parallel structure in each of the following comments:

IFindThisHumorous - the guy was an anti-Bush liberal [my bold]
Sensical Thinker - he was a Bush-hating liberal [my bold]
Herb Smoker - He is a Bush Hating pot smoker just like you [my bold]

These comments confirm the impression that there are Freeper trolls who single out liberals for bullying, harassment, and ultimately persecution. I am even more shocked that your bosses who run this forum tolerate this kind of gang-up mentality, especially in the aftermath of the recent Tucson massacre. Evidently, Detroit News has learned nothing from this tragedy and continues to purvey a business-as-usual form of low-life partisanship. This is junk journalism at its worst.

A quick Google search of “anti-Islam" rhetoric retrieves 421,000 articles in 0.14 seconds, articles such as these:

White Supremacists Find Common Cause with Pam Geller’s Anti-Islam Campaign

Media rife with anti-Muslim rhetoric

Anti Muslim Rhetoric Reaching a Dangerous Level

Anti-Muslim rhetoric threatens fundamental rights

Over 420,000 more just like the above; hate speech from pols and pundits such as Newt Gingrich, Martin Peretz, Patrick Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris, Tea Party candidate Lou Ann Zelenik, and Republican Congressman Peter King; in towns and cities from coast to coast such as New York, Gainesville, Murfreesboro, Oklahoma City, and now Detroit.

Predictably, right wing trolls crawl out of the woodwork and double down on stereotypic rhetoric … accusing all liberals of “Blood Libel” in the name of that dreaded liberal conspiracy of all conspiracies, political correctness. Character assassination, sandbox bullying, and slander - these are not free speech. We do not allow children to bully children at school; yet we tolerate this kind of bullshit from adults!  How many innocent bystanders, judges, and children will be killed on the street before the mental and moral midgets of the far right finally get the message!

Egypt Explained in 1 Minute 42 Seconds

Book of the Dead

I've had a lifelong fascination with ancient Egypt and try to keep abreast of exiting new discoveries being made all the time. Although the feisty Zahi Hawass seems to have done a great job of demanding and usually getting the great treasures of Egypt returned from exile all over the world, I've never been entirely comfortable that they would be as safe in Cairo as they are in London and New York. Egypt has, under his leadership, also done a great deal to excavate the vast number of sites still available for scientific study, using Egyptian resources and the power of an autocratic government to overcome obstacles. It has been apparent that the value to science as well as to tourism has been taken into account, but apparently the defenses and security of the 109 year old Cairo Museum, which houses the most precious and fragile objects are not adequate.

I was horrified to learn, and I'm sure the archaeological community of the world is horrified as well to learn that the museum was broken into by what the US media are calling a democratic revolution and that two more pharaohs have now returned unto their dust: two more of the gods of Egypt are now just names carved on walls.

Looters broke in, ransacked the ticket office and destroyed two royal mummies Friday night, said Zahi Hawass, chairman of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, yesterday.

"I felt deeply sorry today when I came this morning to the Egyptian Museum and found that some had tried to raid the museum by force last night."

Hawass is a man not known for understatement or for being reluctant to speak his mind. Associates call him the Pharaoh and that word carries a multitude of sentiments. Of course his position with the Mubarak government makes him vulnerable and the location of the museum, next door to the National Democratic Party headquarters which was set on fire and was still smoking as of yesterday, is unfortunate.

Both private citizens and members of the tourism police attempted to defend the cultural patrimony of Egypt, but weren't entirely successful. Of course this doesn't quite equal the extent of the rape of the Baghdad Museum in 2003, but the struggle isn't over with and the long term outcome is unknown.

The heart of this uprising is still being weighed in the balance and so far, it's not lighter than the feather of Ma'at against which souls are measured. But I do have a certain level of confidence in a few things having to do with revolutions and mass uprisings: They're always a mixed blessing, they all come at great cost and they often open the door to worse things than were just tossed out the window. As much as I respect the right of countries to own their cultural patrimony, I'm quite certain that for the moment, treasures like the copies of the Book of the Dead now on display at the British Museum until March are quite a bit safer than anything of value in Cairo.

More Right Wing Idiocy

You know, there’s a lot of idiots out there, so I don’t like to concentrate on any one of them, to the exclusion of the other idiots.

Like Rush Limbaugh, for example. If I mention the Pilonidal Cyst That Walks Like A Man in one post, I like to stay away from him for a while. Which is usually a good policy, but becomes a little difficult to follow through on when he opens his slavering gob and spews out statements like this.

Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we're gonna have to openly admit liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled.

If we did those three or four things, I can't tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals. Take their typewriters and their keyboards away from 'em. Don't let 'em anywhere near a gun and control their speech, and you would wipe out 90 percent of the crime, 85 to 95 percent of the hate and 100 percent of the lies from society.

This, coming from Rush Limbaugh, who, speaking about President Obama, said to a caller, "He's taking away freedom, incrementally each and every day, making another big grab at it. That's not hypocrisy. That's tyranny.”

But I suppose you have to be generous and remember that his audience is made up of socially-inept mouthbreathers who spell the word “hippockrassy,” So let’s look to vent our spleen elsewhere.

Pennsylvania, for example.

Former Senator Rick Santorum has been out of office for about four years now, and the lack of a public spotlight is starting to wear on him. After all, he’s kind of a pretty boy, and really, really wants to be the center of attention. So he’s putting out feelers to see if maybe he can run for President in 2012 (and if not as a Republican, maybe he can run as the candidate for the Invasive Theocracy Party).

Ricky is an awesome figure in American politics. I love this guy. I mean, I'm not sure what combination of medications he used in order to appear sane, at least long enough to get elected; but since then, he's built up a body of work that basically makes him a leper in Pennsylvania politics. At least, to anybody but a devout Catholic.

Santorum is a man who believes that consensual sexual relations between two adult men is exactly the same as a man having sex with a dog.

(And you know, he never even addresses the question of whether the dog is a top or not. But I digress.)

The controversy surrounding his blatant homophobia was so public, so acrimonious and so lung-searingly rancid that it prompted gay advice columnist Dan Savage to run a contest defining the word "santorum" (small ess, of course, and therefore protected by satire laws). And the final determination?

"That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex."

This definition is now spread so widely across the internet that Santorum can't escape it. Nevertheless, he plans to try.

But in the course of his journey to an ignominious defeat, he's providing still more fascinating soundbites.



Yup, that's right. In the course of trying to make an argument against abortion, he actually says:

The question is -- and this is what Barack Obama didn't want to answer -- is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person -- human life is not a person, then -- I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, 'we're going to decide who are people and who are not people.'

Yup. Damn those uppity negroes. Why can't they see that it's the white folks who should make those decisions? We have their best interests in mind, after all.

Yes, I understand that what he's trying to say is that blacks, more than whites, should be opposed to abortion. Which is an equally stupid position. And since I get to choose between two equally stupid positions, I'm going with the one that I can have more fun with.

So I'll tell you what, Right Wing. You stop taking quotes from our guys out of context, and I'll do the same for you.