If Only On My Resume I Could Claim I Went To Harvard AND Yale, I'd Be President By Now

This is the candidate the Delaware Republicans decided to represent them this election cycle for the US Senate:

...Just when it seemed the story couldn't get worse for the extremist candidate, it gets worse.

[T]he claim that Christine O'Donnell studied at Oxford has now turned up on a second O'Donnell online resume, this one from ZoomInfo. [...]
This morning, the Democratic National Committee pointed out that O'Donnell is also described in a ZoomInfo entry as having achieved a "certificate" in "Post Modernism in the New Millennium" from the "University of Oxford." The Zoom Info entry was labeled, "user verified."
ZoomInfo, which has spent the day looking into this, has sent over a statement detailing what happened with this profile. According to the company, O'Donnell's profile was claimed in 2008 through something called a "double opt-in process."

The only way that resume, with its patently false claims, could have been published is by O'Donnell posting it to the site. She had plenty of opportunities to correct it, but chose to leave the falsehoods in place.
Worse, TPM found instances in which O'Donnell told similar lies on her MySpace page, 2008 campaign website, and 2006 campaign website. She included deceptive information about her education in court filings, and repeated related false claims during recent media interviews.
This wasn't a typo or sloppy word choice.
In other words, Christine O'Donnell lied, and then lied about lying...

Welcome to a political world where people have been lying for years, and have been lying for so long without consequence or accountability that blatant unprovable lies that can be easily fact-checked with a simple phone-call are routine and common.  O'Donnell doesn't even seem willing to clear the record, make a correction or admit that mistakes were made by herself: she prefers blaming others and doubling down on the lies.

At what point will someone within the Republican Party at the state or national level step in to make it clear to O'Donnell that this is too big a story to ignore or shove under the rug?  Probably never.  O'Donnell is the current darling of the wingnut division of the party, which is now pretty much 71 percent of the GOP as I type this.  The most likely end of this story is that O'Donnell is made into a martyr, gets a book deal and a FOX talk show, and makes millions on the scam she's pulling on the state of Delaware, the nation, and the whole entire planet.

There are people who try to profit on lies.  It used to be those that did were charged with fraud and imprisoned.  Today, they can win elected office and get feted for their savvy and charm.  Welcome to the World of Lies and Unaccountability.  It won't last long, and when it collapses as all false worlds do it is going to take the Real World with it.

Amount of Trouble For This Entry Is Huge, But DAMMIT I Will Say This.

I mentioned elsewhere about some frustration in not getting a bus organized to travel up to the March For Jobs this Saturday. A lady had gotten a bus lined up but then people kept canceling out to where she couldn't keep the bus.  Well, that lady I mentioned, M_____ was able to wrangle FREE seats (25 dollar tip for the drivers) on another bus that had been paid for going from the Tampa area. I still say that libruls can't organize for sh-t and this was stuff that should have been taken care of months ago from a higher level and all, but at least they pulled through. Thanks, M_____!

So now the other problem rears its head.

My dad.

Dad's an old-school Republican. Proof: he still thinks Nixon didn't do anything wrong. But adding onto that is his devotion to all things Limbaugh/Beck. Beck's picked up on the event's happening and has been spending this week complaining that there are Communists leading the event (I have no doubt there are Communists showing up, but um the NAACP and ALF-CIO are the main organizers). As a result, Dad's all in a conniption about this. And mom's telling me that Dad is viewing my desire to go as a personal affront to him.

Never mind I'm 40 years old. Never mind Dad's known me to be more moderate (not librul, dad! MODERATE! You know, more letters in the word!) in my political views. Never mind my frustration at the poor job market and my wanting to contribute something, anything, to getting the word out about how bad the lack of good jobs is out here in the Real World.  Never mind this wasn't meant to be an affront to my father or my family.

If I go on the road trip, it's gonna end any relationship I might have with my dad (and in extension my mom, who I admit is caught in a bad spot).

Considering I'm unemployed, and relying on my parents to bail me out of my mortgage payments...

So I can't go. Just so Dad won't be offended. And I'll just sit there, and let Dad rant about how I need to listen to Beck more, and how I need to be like this, and that, and God knows what else.

You know, Dad? My trying to ween you off Beck? I never order you to stop listening to Beck, I *ask*, as politely as possible. When I add Frum and Friedersdorf to your web browser, I'm trying to broaden your access to conservative opinion, not narrow it. I don't want to turn you into a dirty fucking hippie, Dad, I just want you to be better informed about being a conservative.

But this? I've gotten the order, yes sir, thank you sir, may I have another sir. And if this gets back to you, sir, well then I'll just sit in my corner and sulk like I did back when I was seven years old sir. The way you slapped me and sent me to my room without supper at that age really taught me sir, yes it did sir.

Florida Ballot Amendments 2010: The Quickening

Welcome back to another installment of "We're Voting For WHAT This November?"

Linkage here to official descriptives of the amendments on the state ballot.  Linkage here to reviews, comments and truth-verification on the amendment debates.

Shall we peruse the list?  ...Peruse.  It's an SAT word.  Means "to read."  Sigh...

Amendment One: Campaign Finance Requirement Repeal.
Pretty straightfoward: It calls for a repeal of the public financing of statewide candidates who agree to spending limits.  What does it mean?
It means that, with public financing gone, any candidates for state office will become more ensnared by the need for campaigning and raising funds that will be offered up by deep pocket lobbyist groups and individual millionaires.  A more sensible approach would be to follow other reforms that would reduce outside influences of the lobbies, but hey I'm not able to bribe my local officials with $50,000 of funding so I'm just jealous of those who can.
I'd vote: Against the repeal.  It's not the solution to campaign reform we need.

Amendment Two: Military Assisted Homestead Property Tax.
This amendment creates a homestead property tax exemption to members of the United States military and  reservists who receive a Homestead exemption and who were deployed in on active duty outside the United States.  Basically, anyone who owns a house/property in Florida that gets Homesteaded and was serving in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other tour of duty on foreign soil gets a bigger exemption.
This is kind of a no-brainer: military service is one of the Big Things a good citizen does for their country.  But a lot of the soldiers and personnel who do serve have problems paying the bills just like the rest of us (some even moreso as a lot of soldiers are volunteering from low-income lives).  Giving them a tax break on home ownership can help relieve some of the pressure on our current housing woes.
I'd vote: For the Homestead exemption for the Military.  I'm not alone.  This is polling at 71 percent approval (like I said, no-brainer).

Amendment Three: Removed by court order.
It would have created bigger tax exemptions for first-time home buyers and for certain types of business properties.  People argued it would have created too many tax breaks during budgetary crises at the state, county and city levels and would have forced counties/cities to hike existing rates to unreasonable levels on those who wouldn't be covered by this amendment.
Personally, some tax breaks - like Amendment Two's - make sense.  Others don't.  This one didn't, and Thank God it's off the table.  (Note: I would not have been protected from this Homestead exemption and most likely would have seen property taxes on my place go up by 20 percent or more if this had passed).

Amendment Four: Comprehensive Land Use Plans.
Hoo boy.  This one's messy.  This one requires voter approval of any changes to local (city/county) growth-management plans.  Also known as Comprehensive plans, they're blueprints of how cities and counties plan ahead on how the communities will look (suburban neighborhood here, shopping mall there, 6-lane highway over that way, etc.).
This amendment came about because Florida has a terrible track record of sticking to any eco-friendly or sensible growth-management plans.  Businesses and developers have pretty much free reign in dealing with local governments to get their way: as a result, Florida is one of several states that overplanned suburban and condo developments.  Since the housing collapse of 2007 to current, there are virtual open lots of planned neighborhoods where nothing's been built other than unused driveways and street lamps.  (Note: I live in Pasco: I've counted about two undeveloped areas up towards Hudson, one out towards Land O' Lakes, and one huge undeveloped neighborhood south of Zephyrhills).
Arguing for this amendment, supporters claim the elected officials in charge of the growth-development too often ignore voters, and the rules for halting unplanned growth don't work. This amendment is their solution: Give residents the power to decide where and how the cities/counties will grow.
Opponents highlight that some communities already allow local residents direct vote on the plans: they also point out those communities cope with constant lawsuits fighting over the votes.  Another problem is that voters, Bless them, aren't fully informed about the benefits or detriments of any plan: after all, most of us are NOT architects or land-use experts, nor do most of us don't have business savvy to see how land could be effectively used.  For all we know, a good plan would get attacked with flimsy arguments and fall to voter ignorance: a bad plan would get sold by snake-oil salesmen and get passed that would later prove a disaster for the community left paying the bills.
I'd vote: Against this.  This one is tricky.  I hate how the developers have shredded half this state to build their fancy condos and neighborhoods.  However, I don't trust the overall common sense of the voters (these are the same idiots who voted for Rick Scott KNOWN TO HAVE COMMITTED MEDICARE FRAUD), and I fear if this passes the developers will find a way to twist this amendment to their advantage.  There's got to be a better way to end overdevelopment.  This isn't it.

Amendment Five: Fair District Boundaries - Legislative
and
Amendment Six: Fair District Boundaries - Congressional
These are a one-two amendment punch to the horrific gerrymandering that our state government commits every ten years to draw the state and federal congressional districts.  See, the party in charge tends to draw the districts that favor their party and their incumbents: they design districts that show a decent majority of registered voters to their party and as many of those districts as they can (example: creating fifteen Republican districts that have +2 advantages for the GOP in each district while creating three Democratic districts of +20 advantages where there were too many Democrats to feasibly carve out a Republican district).  In order to create these districts, the party in charge ignores basic boundaries such as city limits, county borders, and geographic edges such as rivers and lakes.  As a result, you can get a state Senate district that stretches between three counties and include voters that may actually conflict with each other over agriculture, schools, and development-growth.  The only uniting factor?  The majority of voters there will all vote for anyone with a (Republican) in brackets behind the name.  The final result?  Unstoppable incumbents of a political party that falsely creates a majority in office and can ignore ("The voters never notice, they just vote!") the actual needs of the citizenry.
Hence these voter-approved amendments.  They will force the state government to create voting districts for the State lege and the U.S. Congress so that the districts are equal by population density ONLY and will follow city/county and geographic borders.  There are considerations for minority representation, but the odds are if they go by population density - read urban centers - there will be enough districts for Black and Hispanic representation to fulfill civil rights obligations. 
The State lege was so terrified of these amendments passing that they attempted to insert Amendment Seven as a means to override both these if they passed.  More on that in the next entry.  Suffice to say, the powers-that-be don't like these two amendments: the PERFECT reason to VOTE FOR THEM.
I'd Vote: For both Amendment 5 AND 6.  They are both fair and just: we live in a state with 1-million MORE registered Democrats, but thanks to a Republican-controlled State legislature the districts have been drawn to favor the Republicans.  There's not even any district that's majority-No Party affiliate: I'm hoping that in districts drawn up by these amendments we can actually get a district that favors neither major party!  BWHAHAHAHAHA!  Better still, these amendments will make it harder for incumbents to dictate their favorable districts, albeit the changes that come every 10 years.  Still, anything that shakes up the incumbency is a good thing: you bastards gotta WORK for your votes...

Amendment Seven: Poison-Pill Redistricting Amendment.  Which thankfully got booted by court order.
Mentioned earlier, this was a State legislature-approved amendment designed to counter the amendments Five and Six.  While the wording of this amendment sounded similar to those other two amendments (saying that districts will not be drawn for party bias), this amendment allowed for districts to be drawn "for communities of common interest."  And what common interests would those be?  Mostly based on party platforms, a loophole to sneak in gerrymandered districts based on "common interest" and not on the needs and realities of actually communities like cities and counties.  The wording of the amendment also allowed it to trump any redistricting requirements in case either Amendments Five or Six passed.
The amendment quickly got challenged in court, where the judge noted it was confusing and held hidden objectives.  It got to the State Supreme Court where they ruled it would also counter current requirements that districts be "contiguous".  The legal system basically said it was a poorly-written and confusing law.  Neener.

Amendment Eight: Florida Class Size
Ah, the issue that won't die.  This amendment is an attempt to repeal a previous state amendment that forced school districts to cap classroom sizes to certain student counts: 18 elementary, 22 middle schoolers, 25 high schoolers.  This would end that and allow schools to set classrooms by average student counts by grade level per district (although it allows for higher caps (21, 27, 30)).  There are funding issues as well.
The short of it: implementing the classroom size limits forced districts to A) hire more teachers and support staff, B) build more schools or add on more portable classrooms, C) really hate the state voters for passing that amendment in 2002.  Given the tight budgeting problems this state's had this past decade, I would sympathize.
The proponents of this amendment claim that a study done on the state showed there's been no discernible improvement in student performances since the class limits were put in place.  Those defending the class limits point out the study was funded by a committee that has Jeb "Kill Tenure" Bush on its board.  This argument quickly falls into the He Said / He Said bickering, so lets try looking at the numbers instead.
The St. Pete Times examined the costs of this new amendment and found that by giving more flexibility with classroom sizes this could save the state $1 billion out of the $16 billion the current amendment supposedly spends.  Question there I have is, will that $1 billion still go to the schools to help fund other necessary reforms such as upgraded schools, pay performance improvements, and programs designed to help struggling kids stay in school for their degrees?
I'd Vote: This is tricky for me.  My mom was a teacher: based on her experiences griping about teaching the kids, I'd come to the conclusion that classroom sizes did make a difference.  A room of 33-40 kids sounded harder to reach than a room full of 25 kids.  There is no evidence I can find that quantity affects quality of education either way.  If there is anything with the class limit, it forces schools to hire more unqualified "teachers" than usual... but that could be countered by improving the degree programs at the state universities and colleges.  The biggest problem the schools face involve keeping the kids IN school, as well as actually getting them solid educations (the current obsession with FCAT exams are making these kids good at testing but NOT at learning or application of learning).  There's more to our education reform needs than just classroom size.  I'd have to vote against this: the state ought to look at other reforms first.

Amendment Nine: Removed by court order.
This was an amendment submitted by the Republican-controlled Legislature to override Obama's Health Care Reform bill.  The courts ruled the language in the amendment was misleading, confusing, and gave off an unpleasant odor (okay, I threw in that last bit, but trust me this thing had a partisan stench to it).

Advisory: On a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment.
This is new.  I don't recall ever voting for a non-binding referendum before.
This is merely a "question" that would be passed on to the federal level: asking Congress to pass a constitutional amendment requiring a Balanced Budget.
My personal views on this need re-stating.  In theory I like the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment.  In practice I find the Balanced Budget Amendment is being pushed by a political party - the Republicans - who have proved on their own to be unable to stick to a balanced budget in any way shape or form.  I find that when the Republicans WERE in charge of the budget - the Bush the Lesser years between 2001 to 2006 - they spent our money like drunken teenagers with their parents' credit cards and NOT ONCE during that time did they even bring a Balanced Budget Amendment up for even a committee vote.  And now?  Now that the Democrats are in charge trying to fix the massive deficits the Republicans created... NOW the GOP wants a Balanced Budget Amendment.  The hypocrisy of it reeks!
What's worse, the Republicans' definition of "Balanced Budget" usually reads as "No taxes to pay for costs, and Cut everything we don't like."  It's their excuse to purge every social-oriented funded program - Food stamps, Unemployment benefits, Education block grants, even Social Security and Medicare - on the books.  Never mind the fact that the Republicans' plan would literally kill millions of Americans via starvation, lack of shelter, what have you.  Anything for their goddamn precious tax cuts.
I'd Vote: No on this.  Out of pure survival.  The last thing we need is any state being on record supporting a "Balanced Budget Amendment" platform that would honestly cause more damage than we need.  If I support anything it's this "Pay-Go" practice of justifying every government expense dollar-to-dollar (or close to) from existing or found revenue.  It's more a stop-gap procedure but it's better than the "Let's Balance the Budget on the Backs of the Broken" bull.

So, there you have it.  The ballot proposals for the state of Florida, 2010.  All comments to be directed below on the link that says "Leave Comment."  Or "Make a Comment."  Or "Hey!  Prove You Read This Blog By Making an Inane Comment Here!"

The Republicans' New Contract On America

I thought about titling this blog entry "The GOP Lemon Pledge" but dammit I think Olbermann beat me to it.

(Mixing the "Pledge to America" with the "Lemon Pledge" furniture cleaner, with the underlying pun of "Lemon" being a poorly-patched product for sale that no sane customer should ever buy.  Okay, now that's been explained...)

The recently-released "Pledge to America" by the current Republican congressional leadership is, of course, an attempt to re-capture the success of the 1994 "Contract With America."   The Contract was viewed at its release as a gimmick (The Left still considers Newt Gingrich's ploy the "Contract ON America"): however, it galvanized the GOP base and gave their congressional candidates a platform to run on.  As such, when the Republicans were victorious that midterm - winning control of both House and Senate for the first time since the early 1950s - the Contract was cited as the key to victory.

Even though half of that Contract never saw the light of day under Newt's years as House Speaker.

So... what of the Pledge?

The current Republican leadership is thinking the Pledge can replicate the earlier success.  However, there are severe problems with that Pledge:

• It wants to extend ALL the tax cuts created under George W. Bush back in 2001-2003 to permanent status (those cuts are set to expire this January anyway).  The problem: nearly every chart graphing the massive government deficit we're living with shows that most of that deficit is caused simply by those tax cuts.  Keeping those cuts intact would simply make the deficits WORSE.
• It wants to hold all unspent funds from the TARP stimulus package.  The problem: most of those funds have been spent out, making this an empty gesture.  Whatever IS left in the stim package could affect the states' collective budgets crises: blocking that could force local governments into drastic and destructive actions...
• It wants to place a spending freeze on all domestic spending, except anything that would affect seniors such as Social Security and Medicare.  And also, no spending freeze on our defense budget.  The problem: The biggest spending portions of our annual federal budgets ARE the Defense, the Social Security and the Medicare, meaning this won't do anything about the biggest parts of the federal bureaucracy in the first place!  And the stuff that will get affected?  Item one: the Unemployment benefit extensions.  Item two: social programs.  Item three: pretty much everything the federal (and even states) budget provides to keep the majority of this nation out of poverty, hunger, and despair.
• It wants to repeal the 2010 Health Care Reform bill.  The problem: The Pledge - and the GOP itself - offers no alternative to the Reform bill that would resolve the ever-growing and ever-threatening health care costs that can kill our economy within the next 10 years... if not sooner.
• It wants to place a permanent ban on federally-funded abortions.  The problem: most Americans actually don't even consider Abortion a Top-10 Problem anymore.  If the Republicans push this, they might run into the problem that a majority of Americans may not like abortion as a practice but they want the choice of it, meaning that the GOP can and will lose even more voters in the long term.
• It wants to place a requirement for all congressional bills to be posted online for review during a three-day period before voting.  The problem: This is the only sane thing in the bill.  The problem is that this feels like a gimmick the Republicans will easily overlook the second they seize control of the House and/or Senate this midterm.
• It wants to make it a requirement for legislation being voted on to cite the specific constitutionality that allows the bill to be voted on in the first place.  The problem: The Republicans want to have evidence of which parts of the Constitution - the Commerce Clause, the 14th Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 8th, the 9th, etc - they will later want removed.
• It wants to spend millions on a missile defense system.  The problem: This is a hangover from the Cold War when we were planning to fight the likes of Soviet Russia and Red China.  Guess what?  WAR'S OVER!  Yay Capitalism!  The odds of Russia or China launching against us are remote to the point of laughable: China's not about to start a war (too much internal security issues) and Russia can't afford one.  The next closest threat to American soil - North Korea - can barely reach Alaska for any target, and they don't have enough arsenal or political backing to do anything so foolish (if North Korea DOES try to launch nukes on anybody like Japan for example, the international condemnation would be so overwhelming it would make the coalition into Afghanistan look like a autumn bake-off).  Our national threats are no longer missile launchers by air but mad bombers on the ground. We don't NEED a missile defense system anymore!  Especially one that's been proven over the years to be a massive boondoggle run by the Defense industry.
• It wants to place a hiring freeze on federal jobs not pertaining to National Security.  The problem: WE'RE IN A RECESSION YOU GOP ASSHOLES.  A recession defined completely by the largest, and longest, unemployment crisis this nation has had since 1933!  And the Federal government (www.usajobs.gov) is pretty much the ONLY institution in this jobless economy THAT'S CONSISTENTLY HIRING!  The banks aren't helping with business loans!  The private sector shows no sign of massive upticks in hiring people!  And you REPUBLICAN BASTARDS WANT TO BLOCK US UNEMPLOYED FROM GETTING ANY JOBS WITH THE GOVERNMENT?!  Dear God, if you ever deign to send me a Messenger, can you PLEASE assure me that 99.99 percent of all unemployed people are aware that the Republicans are trying to destroy us?  And that those 99.99 percent of the unemployed are registered voters who are going to vote ANYBODY BUT REPUBLICAN?  grrrrrr.

The Contract WITH America was relatively tame compared to this crap.  The Pledge is literally THE Contract ON America.  Broken down into its three basic components, the Pledge wants to extend tax cuts, curtail federal spending (that won't piss off the hawks and the elderly voters that make up the GOP base), and basically rewrite the first two years of Obama's administration.  In the particulars however lie the devil's details.  The Republicans' obsession with tax cuts will do just one thing: enlarge an already massive deficit.  Lemme add that chart showing the current deficit projections (from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities):

Everyone should look at this chart.  The big clay-brown color in the middle of the chart?  That's the deficit created by Dubya's tax cuts.  Just by themselves.  I've lived through two massive tax cuts programs: Reagan's 1981 tax cuts and Bush the Lesser's 2001-2003 tax cuts.  Both times, we were promised that A) the tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating more taxable revenue (repeat after me, wha?), B) the tax cuts would create jobs (both tax cuts were followed by massive unemployment: job creation under both Reagan and Dubya were weak compared to other administrations) and C) it would force government to cut wasteful spending (Reagan included massive military spending during his term; Dubya mismanaged two wars and signed off on GOP budgets especially a big Pharma buyout that made LBJ look like a penny-pincher).  Both times, I witnessed only one thing: MASSIVE DEFICITS.  Tax Cuts CREATE Deficits.  That's ALL they do.  That's ALL we need to know.

And yet, this Pledge by the current Republican leadership seems to continue this fantasy-based belief that Tax Cuts Can Solve All Ills.  Even AGAINST tons of evidence to the contrary (even in opposition to other governments like Great Britain, where they are facing their deficit issues with a strict program of spending cuts AND tax hikes: and that's a CONSERVATIVE-led coalition over there).

My supervisor back at my last employ kept telling me "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."  The Republican party leadership is obsessed with the idea that tax cuts will work and that their plans on Social Security (kill it) and Unemployment Benefits (kill it) and Government regulatory oversight (kill everyone in mines, on oil rigs, and eating poisoned eggs) and Defense Spending (kill the rest) will create their heavenly laissez-faire utopia.  And yet each time these tax cuts don't create the Promised Results, the Republicans act all surprised and then blame it on those damn libruls who are stopping them from committing EVEN BIGGER tax cuts.  Each time a Democrat gets elected into the White House the last 20 years - first with Clinton, now with Obama - the Republicans amp up the Fear that ZOMG Commie-Hippie-Controlled Evildoer Democrats are gonna destroy this country and that we need to return the Republicans back to power so they can continue The Grand Reagan Revolution That Will Save Us All (Except for, you know, the Poor and Middle Class and Ethnic Minorities and Women Who Will ALL Be Shit Out Of Luck).

I'd said it before here and elsewhere: Utopias are flawed because their creators keep ignoring complex human conditions.  The Republican Utopia of their 100-Year Era of Reagan is flawed because tax cuts alone do not create jobs (investment in business growth does).  It is flawed because Social Security and Medicare are not massive government boondoggles (privatizing either one would actually RAISE costs of each service: and tying Social Security into risky investments like the stock markets would have literally destroyed millions whenever those markets can (and do) collapse).  It is flawed because THEY, like nearly every other human that ever lived (well, except for that one guy) are flawed.  And they won't admit it.

If we're lucky, this Pledge will backfire: already it's proving to be more gristle for the Democrats' campaigning efforts than impressing the more vocal tea-bagger crowds.

But this is a crazy midterm election, and I still can't understand why enough of my fellow voters across this nation are even giving the crazed Republican party a serious look (yes, the Democrats may be cowards, and they may be incapable of aggressive campaigning, but for the love of God they're not the ones stymieing government it's those damn Republicans!).  If the Republicans do win, there is every conceivable chance they will take this Pledge seriously.

And that would be the WORST thing the Republicans could do.

Cowards

The Democratic Party has decided... rather than confront the Republicans over taxes by passing a bill to extend the current tax cuts to 98 percent of Americans while letting the tax rate for the top 2 percent revert to pre-Bush levels... well the Democrats have decided to punt the ball.  On First and Ten, for the love of God.

Just to note, one of Rove's favorite tactics was to take his candidate's weakness and attack his opponent's strength on the issue.  Make it look as though the opponent's strength was really a weakness - for example going after John Kerry's war record in 2004.  Here the Democrats could have returned the favor: attacking the Republicans on their signature issue - tax cuts - by highlighting the hypocrisy of tax cuts for the rich that created only deficits.  Instead, the Democratic leadership seems horrified by even approaching the topic: they'd rather play it safe and avoid doing anything that would give Republicans ammo for attack ads (like that's gonna stop the Republicans from mud-slinging away!).

The Democrats forgot what Harry Truman did in 1948: confronted with a Republican Congress that refused to do anything - The Republicans were waiting for Dewey to coast to victory - Truman went on the offensive and called Congress to a Special Session to resolve issues of the moment.  When the GOP sat there and did nothing, Truman used that on the campaign trail to label them a "Do-Nothing Congress."  Combined with Dewey's lax campaigning, Truman eked out one of the biggest political upsets of all time.

From Bruno Ganelli of West Wing:

"Because I'm tired of working for candidates who make me think that I should be embarrassed to believe what I believe, Sam! I'm tired of getting them elected! We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me." No more."

Well, the Democrats didn't watch as much West Wing as you'd think.  And instead of holding up a newspaper in mocking triumph, the Democrats are going to be holding up white flags crying "No Mas" and letting the Republican regain control of at least the House in 2011.  And you know that will mean...

Government shutdowns.

Obama Impeachment hearings.

Republican insistence on a tax cut program that would basically kill whatever's left of the middle class.

Nothing done to fix the Unemployment crisis.

While they won't get the Health Care Reform killed, they will subvert its' enforcement and make it as toothless as possible, meaning the potential costs and deficits controls will never happen and give Republicans the excuse that "Hey, Health Care Reform is a myth!"

Maybe 2012 is a Year of Apocalypse after all.

The March for Jobs

Someone in the Tampa Bay area finally made enough contacts with the groups organizing the One Nation Working Together's March for Jobs and has a bus scheduled for the trip to and from D.C. for the event.

Now comes the hard part: convincing my parents to babysit my kittehs while I go off to a ZOMG Socialist rally.  Dad, settle down!  Stop having a heart attack!  Yes, I know they're Socialists!  But Dad... DAD!  They're the only ones out there protesting for more jobs...!

Sigh.  And given my brother up in DC is openly Libertarian... this is gonna be a fun two weeks...

UPDATE: Well, I told my mom about the planned road trip.  Her primary concern is "watch out for trouble," and my reply is "I'm going Quaker," which is my code for "I'm going non-violent and will make sure my group goes that way too."  She seemed a bit upset that I was going, but I reminded her I do have this political bent and that I'm frustrated enough about my lack of success job-hunting to want to head up to DC to protest.  She taught history, so we debated a bit about FDR's New Deal with its four different Jobs programs which I argued helped reduce unemployment from 25 percent to 11 percent within 3 years (my math might be a little off, but that's how I remember it).  Mom, being fiscal conservative, argued that those programs increased the debt too much.  At least she and I agree on Marco Rubio being a crook and that the whole budgeting process is corrupt with lobbyists and hidden riders/bill attachments.
Good news is, they'll help watch over the kittehs and my car and help get me to the bus pick-up next Friday.  It better be next Friday.  Gotta call and make sure.

The Republican Candidates of Scylla and Charybdis

Most of the news today has been about the upset victory in Delaware of a Tea Party-backed candidate (O'Donnell) over the establishment candidate (Castle) and how it has far-reaching consequences for the current Republican Party.

But it also has serious repercussions for the whole nation.

As Yglesias mentions in that link above, the political party structure in the United States is geared to two-party balance (third parties have been glorious failures at the national level: the few times there's been multi-party systems (1850s) it was a fight between one monolithic institution of the Democrats and a set of smaller remnants of the Whigs duking it out for the right to be the final challenger (which the Republicans finally earned); or a serious radical movement (1890s) where the third party Populists were consumed by the better-organized Democrats.  To quote Yglesias: "Ultimately, the two-party system operates near equilibrium, and so the internal state of both parties counts. It’s better for progressives and better for the country for Republicans to field strong, reasonable candidates."  Like it or not, we've got two parties - Democrat and Republican - and like it or not it hurts the equilibrium of the nation's politics when one party (The Republicans) are getting overwhelmed by Teh Crazies.

O'Donnell's victory is merely one of a long line of victories by the Far Right - not at the national level of creating elected leaders - over their internal party rivals of moderates and centrists that the wingnuts labeled "RINOs".  The effect is two-fold: it drives out the moderate, sensible candidate that has a good work record and a habit of, you know, actually doing stuff in office (it also takes that moderate's supporters along with him/her); and it makes it easier for the opposing party (Democrats) to field their own less-crazy candidate that tends to win and keep the now-crazed party out of actual political power.  There are exceptions, of course: Massachusetts's Sen. Brown was a Tea-Bagger candidate who won a prized seat (Ted Kennedy's old liberal lion throne)... but only because the Democrats went with one of the worst campaigners in that state's history.  The more notable examples are the Congressional campaigns of NY-23, or the fates of Lincoln Chafee and Wayne Gilchrist, or pretty much a lot of other Club for Greed failures over the past 20 years or so.

It's been written elsewhere that for the Far Right/Club for Greed/Teabagger crowd, this Pyrrhic victory/Scorched Earth practice of killing their own successful candidates and replacing them with more crazed and less electable ones is exactly what they want.  In part, they don't WANT to actually win in November - getting into office leads to the complex issue of, you know, actually doing what they pledged to do, meaning either total chaos or total destruction - they just want to seize control of the whole GOP mechanism (it's far cheaper than starting up your own third party, for example).  The other part of their ideology that WANTS to win the general elections really only wants to do so in order to prove how POPULAR (See! Real Americans ARE Right-Wing just like us!) and how RIGHT they are on their key issues (abortion, sex education, and tax cuts for the rich) which truly do fly against how the actual majority of Americans think (majorities are comfortable with abortion-with-limits, masturbation in private, and tax cuts for the middle class not the rich).  That part of the Far Right's mindset that wants to win also wants to impose their will in very scary fashions (I am not joking when I say that a Republican-controlled Congress in 2011 will start with Obama's impeachment over his Hawaiian birth certificate and go downhill from there).

Andrew Sullivan's fevered hope that a Republican win in November could be a good thing (are YOU MAD?) - "...the more anti-debt and anti-spending their rhetoric becomes and the plainer it is that serious defense and entitlement cuts are necessary for the problem to be solved, the more I'd like to see the GOP be deprived of their obstructionist no-responsibility posturing of the last two years. I'd like to see their bluff called on spending to escape the current impasse and get to a real debate rather than a phony one. If they win back the House, as it seems inevitable they will, they will have to offer something at last instead of criticizing everything in comically tired tropes and waiting for 2012..." - is one of the weaker maybe-it-won't-kill-us pleas to God I'd ever read. 

Dear Andrew: the Republicans are NOT bluffing.  Their game of Obstructionism wasn't just an attempt to force Obama's platform to be delayed or denied: it was also a genuine attempt to force Obama and the Democrats to accede to a wholly-far-right-wingnut agenda.  "Either make the laws just like we want 'em, Barack, or we vote en masse against them, and threaten filibusters in Senate on every one!  And we can get some of our Blue Dog Dem allies side with us, neener!"  Even though a vast majority of Americans voted AGAINST Republicans in 2006 and 2008, the GOP and their media allies remained sincerely convinced that the nation was still "Center-Right" and refused any sensible bipartisanship: the Republican idea of bipartisan between 2006 and now is/was "It Has to Be Republican-Approved".

Dear Andrew: your other plea - that a win in November would force the Republicans to grow up and govern - is on its face wrong, and will not happen.  If the Republicans win, it will only reinforce their beliefs that A) Americans are truly on their side (rather than disappointed with Democratic efforts or else distracted by Republican lies and fearmongering), and B) their efforts in Obstructionism works, meaning their behavior can get WORSE, and C) that they now have a mandate by the voting public to push their agenda however they see fit.  And that agenda is obvious: Drive Obama from office by any means necessary: impeachment, embarrassment, harassment, government shutdowns, whatever it takes.  Republicans are NOT interested in serious governing - read Matt Taibbi's work - they are interested in winning elections, debasing Democrats, and stealing from government coffers to make their business buddies richer.  No matter how much you want to wish it so, Andrew, if the Republicans are in control of even the House by 2011 it will be bad for the nation, bad for the world, and bad for the next decade.


As of right now, there's been a huge rift within the Republican ranks over O'Donnell's victory.  Karl Rove, of all people, had gone public with his disapproval (and is now getting flack from his once-media allies): Mitt Romney, desperate for relevancy in 2012, has come to O'Donnell's defense, and the NRSC pulled a quick 180 where they first refused to aid O'Donnell but now is sending her funds.

This is my plea to the whole nation: ARE YOU FUCKING MAD?  Stop Voting Republican.  Now and For The Next Ten Generations.  It's the only way to save ourselves from the wingnut madness.

Breitbart Delendus Est.

Supporting Crist

I know I've made earlier posts giving some praise to the man.  Here I'm making it official:

I'm supporting Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate this November 2010.

There's not much I can do in the way of financial donations (being unemployed and all).  So I am trying to find out if there's volunteer time I can provide.  For the seven people reading this blog, if you've got some funds handy and want to piss off the Wingnut Republicans, here's your chance.  Click the link above.  I'll be adding the Crist website to my links on the right.

P.S. Go Gators!  Go Bucs!  Go Bulls!  Go Rays!  Go Spongers (Tarpon High)!

You Guys Working the One Nation Working Together stuff Ought to Advertise Better

For the seven people following this blog, you might notice I've been unemployed for about, oh, 19 months now.  And that I've been YELLING AND SCREAMING for about most of that time FOR JOBS DAMMIT OBAMA WE NEED JOBS.


One of my pet peeves was this realization that for all the Congressional apathy that has been slowing down if not killing any legislative attempts to GET AMERICANS BACK TO WORK DAMMIT, the whole nation seemed to be in this funk of not wanting to do anything about the unemployment problem.  While the televised media itself seemed... distant and aloof about it (the local papers have near-daily news updates and check-ups and job hunting tips, so they at least are aware there's still a problem - and this being Florida with 14 percent out-of-work, IT IS STILL A PROBLEM), there didn't seem to be anything else out there going on.  No marches on state capitols, no rumors of marches, no mass rallies protesting the lack of effort to 15 million Americans back on their feet with good full-time jobs at good wages (As I've let Congress know, Wal-Mart Greeter is NOT a career!).

Not a peep.  And nothing on the Intertubes either.  Not from the liberal blogs nor the conservative ones.  Not from the blogs that tend to be truly balanced and informed.  It was as though NOBODY wanted to go through the hassles of getting into the streets and raising a fuss.

Which is getting really frustrating for me.  Because there are other groups in this nation taking to the streets, and these are groups that in my humble opinion don't have any legitimate grievances to drive them into the streets: the goddamn wingnut Teabaggers.

For one thing: these Teabaggers are NOT grass-roots.  By definition, grass-root organizations aren't funded by billionaires.  For another thing: these Teabaggers are out there protesting things - "OBAMA'S A SOCIALIST ZOMG!  OBAMA'S A SECRET MUSLIM ZOMG!  HEALTH CARE DEATH PANELS ZOMG!  DEMOCRATS ARE EVIL ZOMG!" - that are NOT TRUE.

It came to a head for me this weekend with the realization that a particular Rage Merchant was throwing his own Ego Rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on a High Holy Day (Anniversary for Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech during a march in 1963 for... get this... jobs!).  I felt angry and pissed that an idiot like Beck could get 80,000 Teabaggers to travel to DC to boost his ego, but that 15 million unemployed Americans couldn't get anything together to host a rally in DC to yell and scream for the good jobs we desperately need.

So I went to Daily Kos - yes, Dad, I know they're Socialists - mostly 'cause I figured that would be the one venue where I could vent this matter using a Diary entry.  Mostly I raged that we needed to organize and get a Jobs Rally on DC done as soon as possible.

Well, it kinda worked.  Within minutes, someone posted a response, letting me know that "Hey guess what?  There IS a rally planned for Saturday October 2nd!"

It's being hosted by a group known as One Nation Working Together.  It's really associated with the AFL-CIO, as well as the NAACP and SEIU.  Yes, Dad, they're unions and they're liberal.  They're also the only ones I'm seeing out there in the political arena giving a crap about the unemployment crisis.

So thank GOD there is actually something going on out there.  But here comes my next greivance:

WHEN THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS GONNA TELL US ABOUT THAT?

You'd think the AFL-CIO or the NAACP or SEIU would have a grasp on the concept of advertising.  Because I certainly didn't hear anything about this and it looks like this has been in the planning stages since June.  At least since August 4th, when these guys finally got around to securing the October 2nd event.  Nothing.  NOT A PEEP.

You've got friendly ears in the televised media, don't you?  This was something Rachel Maddow could have been talking about the last three weeks, or at least Keith Olbermann.  Why isn't Daily Kos dedicating Diaries and updates on their site?  Or FireDogLake, which devotes some talk about SEIU?  I will tell you one thing: I'm not hearing anything about this among my fellow unemployed at the Career Center!  Sigh.

Look, here's the thing: we've got about a month before the event takes place.  We gotta start getting the word out to the unemployed across the nation.  It's gonna take time, and money, and travel planning and expenses, and a lot of other things, to make sure we get a good turnout.  'Cause the media's not gonna sit up and take notice if you get just 5,000 people attending.  The media's not gonna pay attention if you even get 80,000 like Beck did.  No, you're going to have to impress the shit out of the news channels: you're gonna need at least 2 million in the streets of Washington DC.  You're gonna need to clog up traffic from Alexandria to Baltimore.  You're gonna have the scare the crap out of the political insiders who simply can't see the number of unemployed people who are out there in the United States.

I'll do my part to spread the word.  But you guys?  AFL-CIO, NAACP, SEIU, the lot of you?  Start getting your ads out there!  Start chatting up Maddow or Cooper Anderson or god help us someone at FOX.  GET THE DAMN WORD OUT.

We need everyone there on October 2nd.  EVERYONE!

The Only Miracle I Want Today

A certain Rage Merchant is marching on D.C. today in mockery of a Real American's stirring call to action.  I refuse to link otherwise to anything about today's hatefest.

The S.O.B. hosting this travesty is claiming a Miracle will occur today.  Unless that miracle involves God turning Glenn Beck into a pillar of salt, I won't be impressed.

Breitbart Delendus Est.

Reactions to the Primaries of August 24 2010

I did not wake up well today.

It's taking me a good while to write up this post-script to last Tuesday's postings about the primaries.  Mostly because Wednesday was a busy day for me, heading out to Charlie Crist's campaign HQ to rally for the November election. (you won't see me on the video, as a big fat guy I tried to stay in the corner out of people's way)


I'm not the only one miffed about Rick Scott being chosen by the Republican Party as their choice for the Governorship here in Florida.  At least one other Floridian is trying to use mockery in discussing the horror that is Scott, but still and all outrage should be the underlying emotion here.

To wit: THE REPUBLICANS CHOSE AN EX-CEO OF A CORPORATION THAT COMMITTED MASSIVE MEDICARE FRAUD UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP.  What words do you think the majority of Republicans overlooked on Scott's resume?  I think they missed the words FRAUD, also UNREPENTANT CROOK, and maybe EVASIVE SCUMBAG.

I've spent more than a few posts yelling and screaming about how the Republicans have failed in their leadership: about how they provide us with con artists, snake-oil salesmen, egomaniacal freaks, borderline racists, and outright liars.  But in previous cases the Republicans at least tried for a pretense of choosing 'sensible,' or least publicly clean candidates that don't have billion-dollar-sized damages trailing in their wake.  With Scott?  Dear fucking God, they're not even trying to hide it anymore.  This guy - responsible for the largest fine in Medicare Fraud history - is openly trying to buy himself an office ($40 million of his own money and counting), and for what purpose?  What do you honestly think Scott is trying to do achieve?  All I can think of is that he's hoping to get into office so that he can use the shield of "Public Trust" to avoid any culpability in the private sector he may have generated (being an elected official DOESN'T stop the criminal or civil charges from coming: it DOES delay it for years, and it gives the scumbag the "excuse" that he's being hounded for "political partisan" reasons.  Phooey.)

The simplest solution to all this is of course to vote for the Democratic nominee Alex Sink.  It's due time for another party to sit in the Governorship anyway (last elected Dem was Walkin' Lawton and that was almost 2 decades ago), and another thing Sink would be the state's first woman Governor (a nice milestone).  Still and all, this pisses me off.  The primary system itself FAILED to prevent someone known to have COMMITTED FRAUD on the scale of billions of dollars from even winning a party nomination in the first place.

WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU FLORIDIAN REPUBLICANS THINKING?  McCollum wasn't too radical enough for you?!  A perfectly sensible, long-time political hack who plays by the GOP purity rules, and McCollum STILL LOSES TO A CROOK?!  WHAT.  THE.  HELL?  Anti-incumbency attitudes alone does not explain this outright stupidity by the majority of the state GOP voters.

Any outrage I might have for voting results in Alaska or Arizona can't measure up to this.  All I can say now to everyone is STOP VOTING REPUBLICAN.  It's not helping this nation.  At all!


Breitbart Delendus Est.

Florida Primary Day August 24 2010

Forgot to mention this, but then again I find the need to purge Rick Scott from my memory every other minute of the day.  Ye Gods, HE'S A VIABLE CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR?

Anyhoo.  Updates on the primaries to be added to this thread.  Voting should be done by evening and updates will follow.  By 10:00 pm tonight we'll have a good idea how bad the GOP's choices will look like...

If you wanna follow the official tallying, linkage to the St. Pete Times politics website provided here.

Oh and I forgot to keep up with this:
Brietbart Delendus Est.

UPDATE: 6:40 pm EST.  It's been a rainy day.  How it will affect turnout across the state this year is unknown, but it does tend to depress turnout.  Usually the less-interested voters who tend to just vote on whim, meaning more dedicated (possibly obsessed) voters have a huge advantage.

UPDATE: 7:52 pm.  There's the Bay News 9 results page available as well (interactive).  The polls are closed and the counts are filtering in.  So far, it doesn't look good in the GOP gubernatorial race with Scott up over McCollum 47 - 42 percent.

UPDATE: 8:11 pm.  Bay News 9 is calling the Primaries for Rubio in the GOP Senate and Sink in the Democrat Governor races.  Pasco County's local elections are still dribbling in, so I can't say who won the Judicial campaigns.

UPDATE: 8:27 pm.  Last early update for some time.  Bay News 9 is calling the Democrat Senate race for Meek.  The Attorney General elections still up for grabs.  The Scott/McCollum race is still too close to call at 46-43, but the polling numbers are staying level so it's looking like Scott could win the GOP nom.  Get those Scotty Don't t-shirts ready.

UPDATE: 10:24 pm.  Greene conceded to Meek.  Results still not changed for Scott/McCollum, they're at 46 to 43 percent at 77 percent precincts in.  Will have to check again later.

UPDATE: 10:43 pm.  Go Rays!  Up 4-0 bottom of the Second Inning!  ...what?  Oh, the primaries...
Interesting tidbit: the Republican turnout was in the 1 million-plus count.  I didn't think there were that many registered Republicans in the state.  Last tally was around 900,000 or so in 2009.  Democratic turnout looks to be around 750,000 voters so far, which is 250,000 less than expected... although it can be said the Republican Gubernatorial primary especially had more at stake...

UPDATE: 10:50 pm.  May be my last update for the night.  Won't stay up long.  Best to say that Scott looks like he'll win the Republican nomination for the Governor's race (Boo Hiss).  Once that race is certain, I'll have more to say on it.  On a personal note, a woman who ran for a Congressional primary back in 1992 - Trish Muscarella - that I volunteered for then (she lost the primary: Bilirakis was an imposing incumbent) has won a race tonight for 6th Circuit Court Seat 18 (Pasco & Pinellas).  So in case I get tabbed for speeding again, I know who to ask for a presiding judge... :)

My 2,000,000 cents on the Muslim Community Center Pool Hall and Prayer Room

Since everyone else is ranting and foaming at the mouth on this issue!
I originally posted this as a comment on Flick Filosopher's thread on the matter, and decided it was good enough for the seven people who read here:

We must stop the Muslims from building a Community Center with a Coffee Shop and Pool Hall and a Prayer Room! And you know why?

That Pool Hall!

You got trouble Folks! Right here in River City Manhattan. Trouble with a Capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for POOL.

Oh, I'm sure you folks will enjoy a fresh cup of coffee, but think of the children! Tempted by the... temptations of an easy game of pool! You want Muslims sitting around five times a day praying toward Mecca, no problem? But get them betting on games of Eight-Ball, wasting their hard earned money from the unemployment benefits they get because of the 10 percent unemployment we've got nationwide, why that's Bad! That's ASKING for Trouble! Trouble with a Capital T and that rhymes with P and that stands for POOL!

...It's from Music Man.  ...It was a musical!   ...Okay, just keep an eye on Turner Movie Classics and maybe they'll rebroadcast it...

Seriously?  If someone wants to build in an economically depressed corner of New York City, which that area of Manhattan is, then God Bless!  If they wanna build a Quaker Microbrewery, GOD BLESS.  If they wanna build a Unitarian Internet Cafe, GOD BLESS!  If they wanna build a Jewish Sports Bar, L'Chaim!  If they wanna build a Muslim Pool Hall, Allah Akbar!

It's taken this long for the Far Right to finally explode in rage and anger at the dirty Muslim crowd, if only because they've gone full bore batshit crazy over dirty Hispanics as well: The argument for "anchor babies" the Right is using to repeal the Citizenship Clause is being used against Muslims and their "terrorist anchor babies" as well.  The strain of racism on the Far Right has gone public since 2008 (gee, wonder why) and it's only getting nastier - they're protesting mosques in states that didn't even get hit on 9/11 - because the Far Right live for that goddamn anger.  It's the only thing they can feel anymore.

Regardless of the fact that the United States has a proud history of the Free Practice of Religion.  Regardless of the fact that all this open outrage over a simple goddamn POOL HALL has gone global and that the REAL "Muslim" Extremists like Al Qaeda are using this outrage to justify their anti-American recruiting (gee thanks Gingrich and Palin for providing Bin Laden with free advertising!).

Just build the damn Pool Hall.  And build the damn new Tower.  And get on with our lives!  Living well... especially living on good terms with your neighbors is supposed to be the BEST revenge, you idiots!

Michael Been of The Call Died Recently

Well they blew the horns/
And the walls came down/
They'd all been warned/
And the walls came down...

This is, sadly, another tragic reminder that we are all mortal.  And yeah, it sounds petty, but The Call was a band I knew and liked.  So this is a death that hits closer to home than most other celebrity passings...

The Call was one of the early 80s New Wave bands out of California (although two of the bandmates, Been especially, hailed from Oklahoma).  They had some decent success but nothing that was chart-topping, more of a cult fave among the hip kids among the Gen-X crowd, and among their fellow rock artists they'd impressed.  You'd probably remember them from this video:




Pretty much their best-known song, although Everywhere I Go, I Still Believe, and Let The Day Begin were well-known minor hits.

From The Walls Came Down video, you'd think The Call were just another Protest Band from the dying days of the L.A. Punk scene.  Not really.  Most of their songs tend to be spiritual, almost Christian in lyrical tone.  But it wasn't the hard evangelical Christianity they evoked: what they sang came out as moral outrage against corruption of power and the forces of darkness:


Sanctuary fades, congregation splits/
Nightly military raids, the congregation splits/
It's a song of assassins, ringin' in your ears/
We got terrorists thinking, playing on fears...


Finding an article online about The Call's Christian stylings wasn't hard:

Unlike much of "contemporary Christian music," The Call uses no religious rhetoric and attempts no proselytizing. Their style is at once driving, confrontational, rhythm-oriented, vulnerable and self-deprecating... Their records show not a trace of the self-righteous theologizing and Bible-quoting that ruins so much "Christian music."  Instead, the band has consciously chosen to use gripping and gritty images of conflict, cataclysm and deliverance, giving their music a genuinely provocative sense of the suffering, struggle and vision of their spiritual adventure. Been and keyboardist Jim Goodwin say this complexity reflects their belief that life contains extremes that cannot be addressed with a pat approach. Almost every one of their songs describes battles with the weapons of love and reconciliation, passing through death to life again in the span of a song. Been says his songwriting hammers away at the spiritual indifference in his own life, and his search for spiritual answers. Sounding a little like a voice crying in the wilderness, he said, "I just keep writing the same song over and over..."

I don't think there are any Russians/
And there ain't no Yanks/
Just corporate criminals/
Playin' with tanks...

This is the closing stanza from The Walls Came Down: moral outrage at the hypocrisy of global politics in four simple lines.  Me and my brothers whenever we'd hear this song would shout out the last two lines, easily remembered and easily repeated.  But those just weren't cool words of protest to chant, like we were screaming "Fuck 'em all" during any other godawful 80s Punk song.  The Call, and Michael Been, were trying to preach to us, letting us know who the enemy is.  Not the Russians.  Not us Yanks.  Just the Corporate Criminals.

If only the Teabagger Crowd grokked that and started railing against Wall Street instead of Pennsylvania Ave.

Safe journey for your soul into the Afterlife, Michael Been.  Say hey to Emperor Norton for me.

Daddy, What Did YOU Do During The Republican War On America?

A wooden shack overlooking a serene lake with children playing on the porch.  The year is 2020.  The War is ten years gone by then.  My daughters Sherry Rose and Sara Dorri have found an oddly shaped leaf and are using it to play with their kitten.  I'm sitting at my workdesk at a window overlooking the porch and the lake, contently looking away from my third non-fiction work, a history of Jamaica in the 20th Century.  I'd been years working on it, so there's no rush to finish.  I hear tinkering from the kitchen: my Zoroastrian wife Jehanara whom I met during the War is stirring up her tea for the afternoon.
I sense movement nearby, and a cough.  I turn to face my oldest child, my son Joshua Abraham Lawrence Spurlock - named for Emperor of the United States Joshua Abraham Norton, General Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, and Michael Spurlock who was the first ever to return a touchdown kickoff for the Tampa Bay Bucs - standing a few feet away, history textbook in hand.  It had to be something about his school homework.  "Got a question, son?"
"Yeah, dad, I do."  He's got his mother's eye color, as close to turquoise as you can get.  Pity he inherited my hair: that double crown on the back of his head is making it burst out in all the wrong directions.  "We're studying up on recent events, things in the news, and comparing them to, you know, stuff that happened years ago."
"Okay, what's the comparison you're working with then?"
"Well, I got an assignment on this guy here."  Josh holds up a printed sheet of a web article: some ex-politician up for a parole hearing and the outrage it's sparking on the Chrome Kos site sponsored by the latest winter blockbuster film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The Spiders From Mars.
I lean in to take a closer look.  "Oh, yeah.  Him.  You had questions about that guy?"
"Well, I started glancing through the school book, and I just noticed that well," Josh shrugged.  "that all this stuff that guy did, all the lying and staged outrage and the violence in the streets he stirred up, and well, this all happened just ten years ago."
"Before you were born, true enough."  I smiled and reached over to tap my son on the shoulder.  "I was like you at your age.  I was pretty much born after all the crazy stuff from the Sixties."
"Well, I was just kinda wondering, you know?"  Josh shrugged again.  "It's just... you were alive then, right?"
"Oh.  Yeah."  I nod with solemn and wistful intent.  "I was there."
"I was just wondering, though.  What did YOU do during the Republican War on America?"

--
Well I'm sitting here right now, in the year 2010, wondering just what I'll have to answer to my boy when the time comes, when he asks me that question: What did I do when the Republicans openly declared War on America?
Because that's pretty much what the Republican Party has done:

• The Republicans want to repeal the 17th Amendment and TAKE AWAY the voters right to directly elect Senators.  The Republicans want to give that power back to state legislatures that had proved less than 100 years ago to be too corrupt and too deadlocked to have such powers.
• The Republicans want to remove the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, specifically the part about birth - being born in the United States or in designated territories such as overseas military bases - as the prime determinant of being an American citizen.  The Republicans want to go after what they call "anchor babies" as part of their War On Illegals, even though there's little evidence that anchor babies work as a loophole in our immigration system (it'd be far easier for illegals to marry an American and get a Green Card, for one): but by going after the Citizenship Clause the Republicans are also going after ANY legal citizen they'd want, and considering the list of peoples and groups that Republicans hate, that's pretty much EVERYONE who's not a Republican.
• The Republicans want to deny Muslims in this country from not only building a community center anywhere near the Ground Zero site of where the World Trade Towers stood, but are now openly going after any Muslim mosque being built ANYWHERE in the United States.  The Republicans want to go after what they fear are "extremist Muslims" but are in fact going after EVERY Muslim, even the political and socially moderate Muslims who AREN'T terrorists.  And this is pretty much part of their decades-long war to make the United States a God-Fearing Bible-Thumping Evangelical State.  The Republicans have honestly declared war on everyone else's right to Worship As They See Fit.
• The Republicans want to go after Blacks, and any organization associated with Blacks.  The Republicans also want to go after Hispanics, especially since you can't tell which Hispanic's an Illegal and which was born in East L.A.  And East L.A.'s not part of Republican America anywho, so why bother eh?  The Republicans also want to go after Homosexuals, because they're gaying up our military and our wedding rituals.  The Republicans also want to go after teachers, professors, anyone with a background in education.  The Republicans also want to go after anyone suggesting that we, you know, allow the Bush tax cuts to expire as scheduled in order to help fight the Republican-created deficit because ZOMG THAT'S SOCIALIST TALK.  The Republicans also want to go after jurors who don't perform to their liking.
• Pretty much, if you're not Caucasian and not making over $250,000 a year with membership to exclusive golf clubs, the Republicans are at war with you.

Welcome to the Republican Reality: where The Wingnuts On FOX News are agitating unrest claiming everyone else is destroying America while their Republican buddies in government are blocking financial aid, financial reforms, jobs bills, and God knows everything else we need to do to fix America that's clearly falling apart.

So... what am I doing during this Republican War On America?
For starters, I'm gonna do everything in my power to keep Republicans out of office.  I'm not voting for a single one at any level.  Period.  Even if there are sensible Republicans on the ballot who would otherwise be reasonable choices, not now.  Not for the next ten generations the way that party is behaving.  The whole party has to lose now just to slap some goddamn sense into them.
I'm also looking to put in volunteer hours with Crist's Senate campaign.  He's Independent now, so I'm not violating the No-Republicans rule I set earlier.  Need to call the campaign HQ about anything I can do in person: right now they're pretty much just asking for money, the one thing an unemployed guy like me can't really afford to do.
I'm also doing what I can to get Democrats to get out and vote this midterms.  THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM: Midterm elections are smaller in turnout numbers (because most people only care to vote for the Big One: The Presidency) and it all depends on the enthusiasms of the party bases.  Right now, the Republicans are all stirred up thanks to the Teabagger crowds: The Democrats are all sniping among each other to the point that their voters are all "why bother?"  Well, Democrats, here's WHY you should bother: THERE ARE MORE REGISTERED DEMOCRATS RIGHT NOW THAN REGISTERED REPUBLICANS, YOU IDIOTS.  Here in Florida alone there's 4 million plus Democrats and 3 million plus Republicans: you've got a 900,000 ballot head start on the GOP!  If every voter turned out, Democrats ought to win every non-gerrrymandered district at the state and federal level they can!  And for the Republicans to win, they'd need more than half of the 2 million Independent/Third Party voters, which is unlikely... even moreso with the Republicans going so far extreme Right on the charts that they have to be alienating too many moderate and centrist Indys.  Do you get that, Democrats?  All you have to do is hew along Center-Left policies, secure moderate Indy voters alongside your Left wingers, and YOU.  CAN.  STOP.  The DAMN REPUBLICANS.  From retaking Congress this midterms.
And why should you do everything in your powers to stop the Republicans, O foolish Dems?  Because I SWEAR to you on Day One of a GOP-led Congress: You will have the Republicans flat-out impeaching Obama, not even waiting the traditional few months or years of investigating him.  They'll just flat-out impeach using the flimsiest forged evidence of a "Kenyan Birth Certificate" they can find.  And it won't matter if they get the two-thirds vote necessary in the Senate to confirm the impeachment: they'll just refile again and again and again, anything to hamper harass and delay Obama's efforts to do his damn job.
And that's just the most obvious thing they'll do.  Having campaigned on so many other wingnut issues to win elections, the Republicans of 2011 are gonna have to live up to their promises: that means for Starters, a draconian illegal immigration bill designed to alienate every Hispanic demographic across the nation (even the Cubans, who normally align with the party that's most opposed to Castro).
That also means a sudden re-interest in overturning Roe v. Wade on the abortion front, something the Republicans refused to do when they had the chance back in 2001-2006, and never mind the fact that solid majorities of Americans don't even consider abortion a Top Ten priority anymore (gee, you'd think unemployment, a shaky economy, a shattering housing and mortgage industry, failing schools, and personal debt bankruptcies would be higher priorities).
And other thing: the Republican Congress will push for a hard tax cut budget that would actually make our deficits worse, but hell anything for a tax cut right?  Especially since the Republicans have pledged to kill Obama's HCR program.  And especially at a time when so many unemployed people are going to be on so many much-needed social programs threatened by Congress' threat of hatchet cuts to the budget to justify those tax cuts.  And if Obama threatens a veto of their budget?  The Republicans can shut down government altogether, like they did in 1995-1996.  Like THAT was fun for everyone involved back when the economy was actually WORKING...
That also means pursuing a Bomb Iran foreign policy platform that would only succeed in thrilling the neocons and pissing off 99 percent of the rest of the planet.  But hey, anything for our friends in Israel who think they've got a "Get Out Of Jail Free" Card that allows them to do whatever they want against their Middle East neighbors... and against their European Allies' interests...  Gee, a constant moving war in the Middle East!  Thanks, neocons!
Oh.  And about ten other things that ought to scare the CRAP out of Democrats enough to GET YOU IDIOTS TO THE GODDAMN VOTING BOOTHS this November.  WAKE. THE FUCK. UP, DEMS!
Sheesh.  This, future son of mine, is what I'm doing during the Republican War On America.  Trying to get everyone else to wake up to the fact there IS a war going on.  And the sane people are losing.

Driving To Kuwait

It is, of course, a big event when the last official US troops of the Second Iraq War drive out late at night down a long dusty road to the light up ahead.

It is also a matter of course that the United States HASN'T left Iraq altogether.  50,000 non-combat troops and support personnel remain in Iraq to assist in the transition to a self-governed state.  By no means is American commitment to Iraq over.

And the damage done by this Second Iraq War - thousands of Iraqi civilians tortured and killed, hundreds of American and Allied troops killed and wounded, thousands more scarred by war - won't fully be tallied for another decade.  If we're lucky.

The best we can hope is that with the United States officially ending their combat mission in Iraq, that some calm and common sense will pass among the Muslim and Arab peoples and reduce the Anti-American sentiments that allow Al Qaeda and their terrorist ilk to thrive.

If only we could bring some calm and common sense to the American shores and stop this goddamn crazy shit from consuming our time and efforts at home.  Damn it all...

Before it gets too late, yet again a Woodstock anniversary

Seriously.  Somebody was high when they invited Sha Na Na:



They played right before Jimi Hendrix too.

OT: just ordered new business cards

Wanted to add the CompTIA (r) A+ Certified logo, also to update to the new email address to be more... professional.

Now... HIRE ME!

When Conservatives Attack: Their Amendment Ideas and How They Can Destroy America

One of the advantages of writing a barely-read blog is I get to go all out and toss some crazy amendment ideas into the global blogging forum: Hey, here' an idea for an Amendment, No More Lying!  Let's pass an amendment stating the President Is NOT Above The Law!  Wheeee, so much fun to be had.

But then the "professional" political hacks decide to get into the Crazy Amendment Idea arena, and it doesn't seem so fun anymore.

The media is all atwitter at the moment about Sarah Palin eye-rolling at a teacher, sorry, the media is all atwitter at the moment about Robert Gibbs dissing tree-hugging hippie leftists, whoops, the media is all atwitter about more of the Republican Party leadership coming out in favor of amending or outright repealing the 14th Amendment of the United States.

In particular, the Far Right wing of the GOP wants to get rid of the definition of citizenship.  Their public reason for doing so?  Getting rid of "anchor babies," the children that are born in our borders to pregnant illegal immigrants who then get to stay in order to raise said anchor babies as a means of circumventing the legalization process.  (Even though there is little evidence that "anchor babies" work as a tactic for illegals, and there's little evidence of a health care crisis because of it.) The right wingnuts got to this solution as yet another step in their ongoing war against Illegals in the United States, a complex and anger-fueled debate that has gone a long way toward driving Hispanic voters (the ones most directly affected by the anti-Immigrant outrage) into the arms of the Democratic Party.

There are a ton of problems with the current wingnut thinking on doing away with the Citizenship provisions of the 14th.  First: amending anything in the Constitution is a huge, mind-boggling and near-impossible attempt.  It takes two-thirds votes in both Houses of Congress and then two-thirds of all states (current 38 states) to amend (the other process - using national conventions - is so fraught with peril that it's only been used once to pass the 21st Amendment to repeal Prohibition and overturn the 18th Amendment).  In some respects, it's rather harmless to have the Far Right latch onto the amendment process as a means of winning their argument as it's next to impossible to achieve: what it DOES do, however, is build up the frustration of the Far Right to where they can and will lash out in other ways...

The second problem?  If they actually do make a serious attempt at removing the Citizenship Clause...

See, one of the ongoing issues with the crazed Far Right Wingnut crowd is how... emphatic they are about going after those they oppose.  Anyone who makes the Republican Party looks bad gets personally demolished by the next FOX Not-News cycle.  Anyone questioning the efforts of Republicans to lower taxes for the super-rich and deregulate every industry to the point that nothing will be safe or reliable will get demonized as SOCIALIST ZOMG.  And above all, the best way they can dismiss, ignore or invalidate anyone that wants to debate them?  All they have to do is point a finger and accuse their opponents of being "Un-American."

What could happen then in a world where Citizenship is not an automatic given based on birth but instead vulnerable to the whims and interests of whichever political party is in charge of Congress, the White House, and the Courts?  Nowadays the Republicans can call you "Un-American" and that would be just another insult.  If the 14th Amendment were gone... A Republican With Authority can call you "Un-American" and mean it... which would also mean no rights under the law, no protection from immediate arrest, no Habeus, no home, no life...  This is the true danger of what the Republicans are proposing to do by getting rid of the 14th Amendment.  They claim it'll be to get rid of unwanted Illegals... but also consider that the Republicans have no love of Muslims right now, and not much love for Blacks, and very little love for Liberals... and so on, and more, and also...  Repeal the 14th Amendment and NO ONE would be safe from the charge of being "Un-American."

Like I mentioned earlier, there's actual little threat to what the Republicans are trying to do against the 14th Amendment: the rules are stacked too well against any amending purge.  And even if they do get far enough to make even a half-hearted attempt?  The reaction from EVERY conceivable minority group - Blacks, Hispanics (especially the legals, the ones born here even five or six generations worth of family ties to this country would be threatened by this), Chinese and Japanese and other Asians, Indians and Pakistanis and Afghans and Egyptians and Algerians and Muslims, even Jews and Catholics and Hindus and Buddhists - will rise up to stop it (Native American tribes are protected under other laws, but even they could be affected by this).  And that's not even including the Euro-descended Caucasian Moderates and Liberals who will rise up as they too could get purged from the citizenship rolls just for the way they vote and think.  The only real scary thought is that the Republicans in power now are willing to even consider this...

After nearly a week of the crazy talk over getting rid of the 14th, saner heads are getting their say on the matter, most eloquently done via this Washington Monthly article:

Several former Bush administration officials, who, for all of their faults, weren't necessarily wrong about immigration policy, believe their party is making a big mistake.

[I]n recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.
Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals "offensive." Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bush's two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their "rightful claim" to the 14th Amendment if they continue to "demagogue" the issue.
"The 14th Amendment is a great legacy of the Republican party. It is a shame and an embarrassment that the GOP now wants to amend it for starkly political reasons," McKinnon told POLITICO. "Initially Republicans rallied around the amendment to welcome more citizens to this country. Now it is being used to drive people away."

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, Bush's former chief speechwriter, added on ABC over the weekend, "That is the wisdom of the authors of the 14th Amendment: They essentially wanted to take this very difficult issue -- citizenship -- outside of the political realm. They wanted to take an objective standard, birth, instead of a subjective standard, which is the majorities at the time. I think that's a much better way to deal with an issue like this."

And that, sad to say, is coming from former Republicans leaders who have little in the way of directly affecting internal and external party dynamics.  But here lies the real serious problem: The current Republican leadership - made up by the likes of Palin, Gingrich, the House and Senate leaderships, primary challengers across the nation- is crazy.  And their interpretation of what the Constitution should read has been ill-informed, poorly thought out, and doomed with unintended consequences that would make things worse.

The 14th Amendment isn't the only part of the Constitution under attack by the Republicans.  They've been after the 17th Amendment - the direct election of US Senators - as well.  The wingnuts, obsessed with the idea of States' Rights, got it into their collective head that repealing the 17th Amendment will give more power back to the states.  Biggest problem with that?  It completely takes away a right now given to the individual voters themselves, which violates the Far Right's tenet of "giving the people more freedoms".  Which pretty much highlights how little the Far Right truly values an individual's rights.  The next biggest problem is that there's a very good reason the 17th Amendment passed: by the turn of the 20th Century the state legislatures in charge of placing Senators had become so corrupted by the practice that charges of bribery were rife, and some states got bogged down in the selection process to where one or BOTH Senate seats were vacant for years at a time (Delaware had NO sitting Senators between 1903 to 1905).  The Far Right's belief that repealing the 17th Amendment is a good idea merely demonstrates their ignorance of American political history, and their disdain for the rights of voters...  (oh, and one other thing the Far Right Republicans might want to consider: Democrats currently control 28 state legislatures outright compared to 8 Republican-held.  And more states are leaning Democratic day by day.  Letting the Democratically-controlled states to choose their Senators could well give the Democrats a 68-seat majority.  Say good-bye to the filibuster and cloture tricks.  NOW do you think that's a good idea...?)

And that's not all.  After 8 years of ignoring the matter during the Bush Spend-For-All Tenure, the Republican Party is trotting out their old warhorse issue of The Balanced Budget Amendment!  ...which begs the question why didn't they push this Amendment idea more back in oh 2000 or 2003 or 2004 or 2006 when they had the chance, but noooooo guess we can't ask them that.

The problems with supporting a Balanced Budget?  None, if you're serious about it, and the Republicans ARE NOT.  Their Budget Amendment idea would require a two-third super-majority in both House and Senate to raise taxes without a similar requirement for lowering taxes.  Thing is, we've got a perfect example of that in California: and any sane observer of the budgeting mess that state has gone through the last 30 years will tell you that transplanting that to the FEDERAL level is a swell idea!  /sarcasm off

There are more sensible methods of balancing budgets, but they include raising taxes at some point to you know ACTUALLY PAY FOR THINGS.  By knee-capping the ability of Congress to adjust the tax rates (going up as well as going down!) all this Balanced Budget amendment would do is kill whatever is left of FDR's New Deal: the forcible cutting back or eliminating basically every social safety net and government oversight our nation NEEDED TO CREATE to compensate for the damage that GREED and corporate incompetence caused from the 1870s to the Great Depression.

These are the Amendments that the Far Right Wingnuts want to pass:

• Eliminate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment (and get rid of everybody the wingnuts don't like)
• Eliminate the Voters' right to directly elect their US Senators (and have the state legislatures become even more corrupt than they are now)
• Eliminate the Federal Government's ability to raise taxes when there is no other way to maintain funding for things like oh the military, health care, social services, commerce and transportation, state funding for state-level services like roads, schools and child care (and basically end the United States as we know it)

And people want to vote these Republican psychopaths back into power?

(Slight Edit for grammar)

Job-Related Topic: updating emails

I've had it with all these resume reviewers telling me witty@wittylibrarian.com isn't professional enough.  Damn you and your dull colorless patterns!  Fine.  FINE!  I can now be reached at P.Warten@gmail.com.  Only serious human resource officers need apply.

Very OT: The font of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce

Just in case people want to make their own "Mad Men" fan blog.  The font used for office signage at SCDP is Akzidenz-Grotesk.  Not Helvetica or Arial.

It's be nice if HTML can handle True Type fonts.

You have been informed.

Also, Breitbart Delendus Est.

OT: No-Hitter

Just wanted to mention that my twin brother had tickets to Monday night's game between the Rays and the visiting Detroit Tigers.

Huge No-Hitter game.  First one in Rays history!

Congrats to Garza on the historic victory!