Cyreena Boston for HD 45

***Repost from earlier date***

This is my friend Cyreena Boston who is running for HD45

I've known Cyreena for 2 years, since she came on board DPO as Constituency Director, and known her as a talented intelligent woman who cares deeply about the people of Oregon. She has the ability to reach out to almost any group of people and show them that she understands their interests and cares about them. Her job with DPO was very demanding and involved all kinds of political calculations in its performance. She carried it off magnificently.

I'm pretty sure an endorsement from small town NE OR isn't of great import in N Portland, but some of my readers are active and care that good representatives are elected whether in their HD or not. So I give you this link to Donate . Like any Democratic candidate, money will be an issue so see if you can step up. Find her campaign site here .

There is also an ongoing Contributions link on the side bar.

Site Note

If Hillary Clinton can avoid some egregious action for awhile, she is going to fall off this site. I'm real tired of her, you probably are, too.

Senate Endorsements

I've been encouraged from a couple quarters to make endorsement in the Merkely/Novick race and I will at this time make this endorsement, we've got two real good guys running and it's time to start taking their measure. They need some bucks to make their play so getting some of that out there would be a good idea. I've done some bit for the campaigns and I'm still looking and kicking tires. It is embarassing that it was easier to pick a Presidential candidate, who is now gone and I've moved on, than it is to pick a Senatorial Candidate. It certainly isn't that one race is more important or more on my mind, it is that the choice was clearer.

That says a lot about the caliber of men we have running, these guys each make such a great candidate in their own specific ways without disqualifying policy statements that a political junky like me is stuck. I'll point out what I see as each one's most distinct advantage with the qualification that neither is a deal maker for me. I expect to see each grow into the role as time passes.

Jef Merkley has a good organization, they're good at what they're doing and have significant backing. This is a real plus for a campaign, boy do I know what a plus. Some serious hitters in the current political scene are on board and the machinery seem well oiled.

Steve Novick has an edge when it comes to rhetoric. He's sharp, witty, and appropriately abrasive when called for and able to lay out a personable reasoned discourse when called for. It is never of any doubt that you're in the presence of a fighter and an opponent better come well armed. That fighter aspect properly gets less play in regard to Merkley, but a Gordon Smith will get no quarter.

If you take these minor reccommendations as criticism of the other candidate, back the train up. I'm talking about what seem the most outstanding advantage of each as of now. Jeff Merkley is an excellent speaker, particularly in the presentation of a personable concerned individual. Steve Novick's organization is not crippled, it has in fact been quite successful.

I have minor policy quibbles with each, neither has managed to create an advantage with me in that respect. If I have a major problem, it is with both and it is that neither proposes that it is required to make illegal hiring sincerely unattractive for employers to indulge in. There is quite frankly no matter more important in blue collar employment than having your wages gutted and hiring opportunities slashed by the presence of people with no legal business in the market. Health care falls off the radar when the problem is having a job or meeting very modest bills because you are in competition with illegal labor. In the face of ruinous fines and jail time and real enforcement the practice will stop and we will gain control of the labor market and be able to set reasonable immigration policies to fill vacant employment slots. I really have no idea why Democrats can't seem to get that one, but they don't and the Republicans just play closet racists.

Gordon Smith needs to go back to Pendleton and play with frozen peas, I'm sure he'll get to wear his nice clothes. Meanwhile we Democrats need to back our guys and sort them out. Giving them financial support and time to show what they've got will result in being able to make a decision superior to eenie, meenie, minee, moe; caught a Gordo by the toe. There are contribution buttons on the sideboard, use one or both.

Was It PMS?

You explain it better, RNC talking points, lauding the established Republican candidate over your own Party's, attempting to explode the DNC, using discredited CBC NAFTA reporting. You can say, hey that's really sexist. I think it is less insulting than the other alternative.

The other alternative is that it doesn't matter in the least to Hillary what happens to the Democratic Party in general. The Congressional campaigns can go hang. If the nominee isn't her he can go hang. What matters is getting Hillary votes. You like that one better than PMS? I can tell you that Hillary is a veteran of the dirty politics game - and not just as victim. She and her team know how to do it. What has gone on for the last week or so is dirty politics, not rough and tumble politics, dirty.

I'm tired of the BS, this is a Democratic Primary. I've already said there is value in having a contested Primary, I didn't say a bloodbath. There is value in the process of having a discourse about policy and vision. There is absolutely no value whatever in having a Republican versus Democrat fight in a Democratic Primary. There is no value in kicking apart the DNC with rhetoric about issues that everybody agreed on rather than finding a fix. I am a Democrat, and I am a Democrat who has put a lot more time, effort, and money than I had into helping that Party get better and I am seriously pissed by deliberate efforts to wreck it.

Maybe the machismo Neanderthal PMS sounds better now?

Monster?

Politics is in some ways a peculiar endeavor, you must not get caught telling a bald faced lie, but telling the truth can be a mistake, also. Candidates are allowed to exaggerate a little, well, a lot, but not in ways that can be directly refuted. Candidates can speak clearly and plainly as long as it involves somebody or something everybody is upset about. What you absolutely must not do is give vent to anger and frustration over another candidate's lies and misrepresentations and use of the opposition Party's junk. And call that person a monster.

Barack Obama has a problem, he's up against a political pro. The experience that Hillary has that amounts to something is having been a part of old school politics for a long, long time. He is trying to run a campaign that is different in a game that isn't, yet. Hillary will not take responsibility for any mistakes, hers or ones she was a part of and she will throw anything she can to see if it will stick; and not care if it harms the Democratic Party. Barack cannot and keep his mantle of politics with a difference. He cannot allow his surrogates to get into it. Despite some of the junk on comments on various sites, he's kept to that line. Samantha Power stepped right over that line. Facing Obama was the choice of trying to smooth the roiled waters and appear to play on the same level as Hillary or let Samantha go. Bye Samantha.

I know the problem unscripted moments can bring, I let myself get a bit wound up and that combined with a tooth ache and too many hours of too little sleep had campaign speech slip into calling the Republican Representative Greg Walden "a pinhead" in front of the press. Understandably they reported it. So the choice was wear egg on the face or make an omelet, so I wrote a letter to the editor of the paper and apologized to all pinheads everywhere. I could do that, I was running in 16" logging boots and a beard and plain talking. Barack is running as a nice guy who can unite us and that is not congruent with calling the opponent a "monster."

I don't work for Obama, I'm not a contributor, and I've been a frequent critic. Hillary is a monster, at least in the frame of the Democratic Party. She'd probably be right at home and quite admirable within the Republican Party with her behavior. I don't much mind politics of the rougher sort, but I do insist on truth and not playing to fear - ie terrorism. Hillary's version of politics has been played to death by Karl Rove and the rest of BushCo. One can hope that the fuss over "monster" will bring to the front of voters' minds the tactics of HillarCo. No, her head is not stitched on nor are there bolts sticking from her neck, that would make identification easy, paying attention is harder.

Charlie Christ Is A Disengenuous Liar

Republican Governor Charlie Christ of Florida went on Chris Matthews tonight and laid out the perfect Republican trouble making lying rant. He claims to represent all citizens of Florida and to advocate for not disenfranchising Florida Democrats. He says they held an election and the delegates should be seated or the DNC should pay for a new one. He presents himself as the white knight victimized by the DNC.

The Florida legislature voted to move the Primary date up in front of the allowable date set by DNC. Charlie Christ signed it. Charlie Christ and the Florida legislature all knew exactly what they were getting up to when they moved the date. They did it in the face of the facts, their election was not going to be valid and they knew it. It was to their political advantage to play hardball with DNC. The Florida Democrats went along. (a really truly stupid move)

Their efforts are bearing fruit, Floridian Democrats are angry with the Party, Hillary Clinton is bucking the national party, and the Florida delegation is not going to be seated before the nomination is decided. The DNC is not going to spend election campaign and organizational funds to pay for Florida's cockup. Christ says Florida is not going to pay. Nobody is going to pay. Charlie Christ gets it all, he gets to look like a champion who is fiscally responsible and at the same time do everything in his power to destroy the Democratic Party in a year when there is little reason to think they could lose. Well he doesn't get to do it in front of me. He's a lying sun tanned Republican snake.

The DNC might have to spend some bucks in FL to counteract Christ's propaganda, but it would be worth it. It should be little trouble to make the case that Christ is directly responsible for his state's Democrats' dilemma. The fact is that there are long term benefits for the Democrats in Florida to show him up as the snake he is, a Democratic Christ voter might think about it when his term expires.

At this point the only realistically affordable process is caucuses. Hillary will hate that and fight it. Considering that she has made herself a part of the problem rather than the solution, it is a fair pay back, she deserves to be screwed to the wall. The State Democratic Party of Florida played the Republican game against their own Party, these idiots need to go. Florida Democrats should take matters in hand and get rid of these people, they have the power, quite easily.

Back to Lying Charlie. If you'd like to touch on the inability of these so-called political reporters to deal with issues, Chris did point out possible Christ motives but he missed the absolute kiss of death to his lies. He did not point out that as the "advocate for all Floridians" Christ could have vetoed a bill with known results, in the end run that legislation's passage is his fault. But the game of gotcha has rules and one of the rules is giving the rat a hole to duck into. Even if the hole is imaginary, it didn't get blocked. I'm sorry Chris, it wasn't that hard to kick his lying butt back into his cabana.

It is time for the DNC to go on the offensive with the liars, the trouble makers, and the deliberately uninformed media. This mess is not of the DNC's making. The solution does not lie in DNC's hands. DNC bears not one iota of responsibility for it and cannot solve it. It is up to the State Parties in MI and FL to deal with. Those Parties bear the ultimate responsibility to the members of their Parties and while economics may prevent their preferred solution of another election, they can certainly caucus. I will state with absolute confidence that if the little Baker County Democrats party had to caucus we'd manage it in a County that dwarfs the eastern state counties.

Every progressive blog in the country should be calling for Charlie Christ's head on a pike after tonight. We could provide Chris Matthews with a butter knife for the removal process, since he obviously can't be allowed sharp tools.

Being Alive Is Risky

Being alive is risky and it is ultimately fatal. Get used to the idea. There may be no point in rushing the ultimate consequence of living, but it is equally ridiculous to pretend that we are at any time safe. We aren't. We fall down stairs, we slip in the tub, we have all sorts of misfortunes befall us. You over reach on the step stool and go over with your head making contact with the countertop corner and it's all over. ooops. You might be a victim of a stranger crime or a personal crime or you might get it in the armed forces. A foreign or domestic terrorist might get you or just plain old age body failure. Something at some point is going to take you out of it and pretending to yourself it won't is nonsense and wishful thinking.

We aren't running the country that way any more. We've allowed the government to take unprecedented steps in the search for security. We've allowed the militarization of our police forces. We've funded a pharma empire in search of...a little more. We hook loved ones to machines and persecute anyone whose lifestyle isn't "healthy." We are virtually pharonic with our dead but hunting an animal is disgusting, our dead animals aren't food, that comes in plastic and styrofoam container. Somehow we have become that strangest of all possible creatures, fascinated by faux violence and scared spitless of our own risks.

We claim to love our American form of government and cherish our rights, then we spit on them in search of security. We elect those who spit on us as a people because they say they'll keep us safe. We allow elected people to offices defined by the Constitution to pervert that document. We allow the media to manipulate us and and ignore it at any time it tells hard truths, in fact when the media bothers to tell the truth we penalize it. Roads designed to be used at speeds well in excess of 70mph in cars designed to function well at higher speeds have reduced speed limits to keep us safe, as though 15mph wouldn't be much safer. We watch shoot em up movies full of fakery but fear the actual firearm. We willingly swallow almost any kind of nonsense if it is called a threat and feel reassured when the government deals with it. This includes the most pathetic individuals who are led into stupidity by government informers.

In the midst of all this fear we forget how to actually live. That's right, that wonderful tasting marbled steak may not be as good for you as tofu, but exactly how long do you propose to eat tofu? An extra year or two? Speaking your mind openly and enthusiastically may draw attention to you, do you propose to cower somewhere instead? How many hours of extra life do you waste in airline security checks that are primarily designed for feelings rather than effect? When you check my 81 year old 4-10, overweight mother as a security risk I know you aren't serious, you're doing it to look like you're doing something. My Crest is not going to explode and anything you could mix up that would will stink to high heaven. You buy it. You stand sheep like in an endless line to prevent the most unlikely event. You condone the torture of fellow humans because there is an off chance that you might get some kind of information, you are more likely to get hit by lightning than have that work out...shouldn't have mentioned lightning, now you are scared. The bloodshed and economic toll on our highways in a couple years exceed the total death and economic wreckage of 9/11, minus the fear induced losses. You let the President walk us into a war in Iraq because somebody said "smoking gun...mushroom cloud." Hillary Clinton can run a Republican ad and gain votes, from Democrats for god's sake.

Now I'm not trying to persuade you into my lifestyle, I use heavy power tools, walk on walls and climb trusses; I hunt and fish in bad terrain; I drag race (on a track); I live a decidedly edgy life. That doesn't mean I'm full of it or reckless, I measure risk; but I'm not paralysed or driven to nonsense by risk. Freedom of speech is a risky proposition, things you may not like are liable to reach your ears, things you don't like are liable to reach your eyes and finally people are liable to say dangerous things. Somebody might tell you to quit cringing. Somebody might call one of your Congressmen a cowardly traitor...

Ah, get back in bed and pull the covers over your head, it still isn't safe here.

Feminism and Me

There are elements of feminism that plainly irritate me, the idea that politeness involved in opening a door is not really that but a male dominance enforcement offends hell out of me. It also offends me to be told that gender equality means any woman can do any job. If you want to come out and play with me on my job an inability to carry a 90# bundle of shingles two stories up a ladder and safely put it on a roof, repeatedly is required. It is not negotiable and no, there is no gender requirement, just the muscularity and agility to do that. If you are 105 pounds and 5-2 this is past you and if you happen to be female, it includes you. I do not want to mess with the English language, an indefinite pronoun is he or him or his, I do not propose to call manholes person holes and I can just barely tolerate chairperson. But guess what, just because I dislike the stupid attributes of feminism doesn't mean I'm a Neanderthal.

Here we go, the idea that a woman is emotionally or intellectually unable to deal with any position of authority is absolute nonsense. The idea that there is some inherently male dominance trait that enables males to better run things is flat out stupid. Equally as stupid is the idea that being male or female entitles anybody to anything. Human beings are just that and widely variable in ability and competence. The fact of gender has nothing to do with it. Gender has been used as a measuring stick in wage and promotion and that is flat wrong. It is as intelligent as using eye color as a qualification.

Now I do not like Hillary R Clinton for specific reasons and not one of them has to do with her sex. I would not vote for nor oppose anyone on such a foolish basis. The facts of historical prejudice regarding women, blacks, or any other in high office do not make someone a good or bad prospect. That fact means that we need to keep an eye on our decision making processes and advocate the same.

I am a staunch advocate of equal rights and responsibilities for all law abiding Americans. I find it incredibly frustrating to be in opposition to the first woman to have a credible shot at the Presidency, well that has a lot to do with the candidate. I can't help the who of it.

Readers may wonder if this blog is a cyber-personality, an artifice of of the impersonality of remote communication. I can assure you it is not, I am exactly as presented. Oh, admittedly a bit more profane in everyday language, but I am as opinionated and ornery and hard driving as is presented to you, everybody gets the same thing. I tell you this to validate this point, I like strong natured women, I am married to one, it is necessary. I am strong natured and dealing with me in a close relationship requires the same. So Hillary, I don't like you and I wouldn't like you if you were a man or a green martian.

More King George II

The Constitution sets out certain responsibilities in government, and one of those is that the Senate ratifies treaties. Well it thought it did up until GeorgeII set them straight. He does exactly as he pleases in regard to Iraq because he's got the Authorization to Use Force. This is sort of like the CiC position, he can do as he damn well pleases because we're at war. Let's ask some of those Senators who voted for that piece of unmitigated junk if they're real happy right now. Hillary is, this was a negotiating tool, she says so.

WaPo notes:

The Bush administration yesterday advanced a new argument for why it does not require congressional approval to strike a long-term security agreement with Iraq, stating that Congress had already endorsed such an initiative through its 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam Hussein.

The 2002 measure, along with the congressional resolution passed one week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks authorizing military action "to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States," permits indefinite combat operations in Iraq, according to a statement by the State Department's Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

Congress has the nerve to act surprised. They've let this bunch of incompetent crooks get away with this same behavior for 7 years and at this late date they expect something else? It's really hard to believe that it is going to be 11 months until we're rid of this cretin and his cohorts and patience is the only recourse.

Clintonian Stupidity

I am ordinarily reluctant to include a Democratic candidate and the word stupidity in the same sentence, or especially title. Hillary Clinton and her campaign are asses. Let me be clear, there are places you do not go as a Democrat. The 3:00AM commercial was fear mongering, that was not smart, not for a Democrat. Politically it was apparently of use, vote wise. Post Primary it may have been extremely stupid. If you manage with this particular kind of crap you've set in motion a scenario where the other candidate's backers would rather spit on you than help.

Let's move on a to pretty darn stupid (more categories to come), vetting the Republican candidate, McBush, as more qualified than your Democratic candidate competition. If I remember correctly, the idea is to try to beat BushCo II, not pump it up. I'm glad McBush survived the Hanoi Hilton with honor, good for him. Such a thing doesn't make him an expert at anything other than surviving as a POW. George II ostensibly knows how to fly a fighter plane, that's been helpful. His years in the Senate show some real experience at getting too cozy with, oh say, Charles Keating. Or then there are some issues around torture that, say, a former tortured POW might really want to take a very principled stand on, that he did not. This is the butt wipe that Hillary touts above Barack Obama. Her experience has yet to be spelled out as more than sleeping (maybe) with the President.

Real stupid, next category for $0.05 please, is sticking your finger in the DNC's eye about non-elections you agreed were non-elections from the outset. MI and FL can be addressed by them holding approved delegate selections. That part is not hard to understand, they did not have such a thing, they have no delegates, they don't count, never did and will not unless the DNC proposes to implode - I don't think they do. The question remaining, the real one, is getting something together in time...and paying for it. The Republican Florida Governor, Charlie Christ, proposes that the DNC should cough up, you know, their campaign funds... AHAHAHA. You people screwed this up, not the DNC. YOU. Guess what Hillary, I don't know any Democratic activists that're exactly pleased with the mess, but you're sure not helping. Just exactly how badly do you want to piss off the Democratic Party's machinery, who have to live with rules?

Now for the nasty, terminal stupidity. Referring to your opponent as Ken Starr for asking about tax returns brings up some things some of us are old enough to remember as pretty darn obnoxious. OK Hillary, let's talk about Ken Starr, let's talk about the stupid and less than upstanding things that led to Ken Starr. Let's bring up memories of missing records that couldn't be found and link them to tax returns that can't be produced. Boy, maybe we ought to dig around in Travelgate to go along with Whitewater, and while we're messing about in Ken Starr and all that, who was that Monica? Somehow connected with a Paula? Cripes. You complete dumb head, you were there, why in the name of anything intelligent would you bring ole' Ken back into the picture? You expect sympathy? You'll get none here, your actions kicked off that mess, certainly not rising to the level of the Republican hypocrisy, but it was YOU.

Here's the deal, Hillary, you demonstrate your ethics and your judgement with each and every day on the campaign trail. You keep coming up short. You show just how much you care about winning and what lengths you're willing to go to, and it looks bad. I'm sick to death of Rovian politics, I'm sick to death of politics at any cost from the Republicans. The charge has been previously made that you play politics like a Republican, need you prove it? I don't mess around with you pukes, you play against America's interests and historical liberties and I'll call you down as hard as I know how. I'm enough of a Democrat to kick you around here and admit I'd vote for you in November, but holding my nose and trying not to retch didn't have to be the situation this time around. It did involve nose holding, from the outset, but the vomit reaction is recent. Knock it off.

Hillary's Continuing Campaign

I made the case a few days ago that absent wins March 3rd Hillary should get out, she got the wins. See Middle Earth Journal for my thoughts on the good aspects of this continuation of the contested Primary.

IL 14th CD, The Story Is, There's A Story

Denny Hastert's retirement left open this seat, a traditional Republican stronghold, he's held since 1987. Incumbency is always a strong factor in winning elections and may have helped Denny hold the seat for all these years, but nobody has seriously threatened him. Dennis was no model of moderate Republicanism. Running under his Party's banner is James D Oberweis. Oberweis has run twice for Senate and once for Governor, the RNC has thrown $1.5 million into holding this seat. A measure of their interest is the fact that it is 1/5th of their money. Oberweis is a dairy owner and founder of financial companies, apparently wealthy enough to pretty much self finance his campaign.

Opposing Oberweis is political novice Bill Foster, a particle physicist and founder of a theatrical lighting company in his younger years. Foster is also wealthy enough to essentially self finance his campaign, the DCCC has thrown $600,000 into the mix. Foster has taken a position as a candidate of change, stressing national health care, end to the Iraq war, and a revision of energy policy. Foster's drawbacks seem to be his campaign style, he is neither electric nor apparently presenting an affable personality.

The special election is conducted Saturday to fill the remainder of Hassert's term which as a Rep's seat to also be contested in November. Both candidates are their Party's nominees for that election. Cook Political Report has this race as a toss-up, that's right, the ex-Speaker of the House Republican seat is up for grabs. There has been a shift in demographics but there also is a wave of enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. This is a story that may have some real national relevance to other races. While the 06 races were seen as a referendum on BushCo, the results were entirely too mixed to show any Party dominance, note the repeated stalemates in the Senate.

These kinds of stories should place right in front of voters the question of Presidential candidate coattails. The campaign for the Presidency gets the national attention, the press coverage and the money. Voters' eyes are on that prize and enthusiasm for a candidate carry over to the Congressional races. Who is it that will carry seats with them. The latest WaPo/ABC poll shows Clinton beating McCain by 6 points and Obama beating him by 12. Polls have lately proved to be of questionable value and their impact on voters limited. If such polls had much meaning to voters John Edwards would have had a much larger impact, since he led by a wide margin in beating Republicans. The fact that this race is a toss-up in a long time Republican district is a story should speak loudly to Democrats, candidates and voters.

Dream Ticket

Starting right out of the gate I''ll say I think this is no more than a media pipe dream. Pretty much something to talk about to fill time. There are no good reasons for it and a lot of good reasons for neither getting involved. Start with the question of what does the other bring as VP?

In Hillary's case, contacts, mostly old, dated and potentially progressively hazardous. The big money contacts would follow the winner, regardless. Hilary's voter demographics don't encourage the idea, these are people who will vote Democratic with Obama at the head. She doesn't bring any real impressive foreign policy chops or contacts, eight years is a long time in international politics (much less considering the vaporous nature of her claims). In a run against doddering John she has no national security claims that would bring anyone away from the septugentarian. Her presence on the ticket would do nothing to encourage the voter groups that Obama has brought on board to more political activism. Her relations with the press are already uncomfortable, more due to her complaints and attitudes than any actual press anathema. What Hillary would bring is the Hillaryhate, some irrational and some with some basis - that is not useful. If gender is some kind of consideration, there are a quite a few other women. There is little advantage in it for Hillary, eight years from now she is eight years older and reaching an age unfriendly to a candidate. (see dodderer) An Obama/Clinton loss in 08 would not be a reason to bring either back in 2012, the amount of blame accruing from such a thing would amount to a firestorm.

For Obama as VP there is a little more to be considered. There is little reason to think he can bring along the new Democratic voters as second fiddle. He could certainly ask, but making the case to these folks is highly doubtful. These are the babies that need nurturing, they will easily get political indigestion. After serving as VP no one would be able to make negative claims about his experience. There certainly would be an element of Hillary looking magnanimous, but that is pretty immaterial. There is honestly an open question on whether Obama would actually bring voters Hillary couldn't get without him and by her own attacks she sees nothing useful in his presence in the Executive Office, certainly not at 3:00AM. His oratorical skills are superior to hers, but useful only in separate settings, you certainly cannot have the candidate being upstaged. Hillary's authoritarian style would definitely cause chafing for Obama in the Executive Office. Hillary gains little and risks a disaffected VP, a marriage made in hell. Besides, what would she do with the Bill?

Honestly, why does this sound like a good idea much less the "Dream Ticket"? Talk of Party unity is nonsense, they're running against John McCain and George W Bush not Ronnie. This ticket idea would be upstaged by a couple chants of, "four more years."

The Experience Mantra, Hillary?

Leave aside the question of whether sleeping with the President is experience, let's talk about the reality of campaigning. This is the candidate who last spring was the presumptive nominee, all the media and all the pundits called it a gimme. This is the voice of experience we're supposed to take seriously, she's in deep do-do against a black guy with a Muslim middle name and a generally funny sounding name. Do what?

This is the person who put this campaign together, it's her baby. She chose the people. Terry McAuliff and Mark Penn? And the rest of the campaign? This is George II's foray into Iraq all over again. The super power stuck in the mud against a second rate power. Except for a real difference, despite the middle name Barack isn't a half-assed organizer and thinker. He's put together a real proffessional and effective machine, not an "I'm a name" campaign, the real deal. He's struck out on ground that is astonishing, the pieces that've been missing from Democratic politics for decades. Youth and minority and poverty.

Now, let's talk about practical experience, like putting together a winning organization.

Oh That Lapel Pin

Hat tip to Balloon Juice for "kiss my lapel pin."



By the way, it wasn't the Pledge, it was the National Anthem, despite all the spin and news organizations' inability to get the thing straight.

Spinning Fear

Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (D) just got done spinning the 3:00 AM ad. It's hopeful. Do what? Mommy gazing at sleeping children at 3:00 AM hoping the Prez will answer the phone? Let's see, that call is undoubtably about - how the Cribbage game went? Give me a break, the message is clear, the world is a bad dangerous place and only the Clintons (we get two for the price, remember) can deal with it. The world has always been what it is now. Always.

History books that deal with any era tend to be pretty thick, and most of that thickness is devoted to conflicts. Get it? The world is what it is and what it has been and that is neither extraordinarily dangerous nor a playground for children. Judgement counts, as does the ability to measure people. Now Clinton claims that judgement, but at the same time she was mislead (or something) by BushCo. This outfit that scammed (?) her is the Executive Branch of the US Government, not some foreign country. It is not a foreign sovereign nation with and agenda that has nothing to do with the US, the people that lead her down the primrose path are our own citizens. Citizens with a written record of aims and desires and policy methods. There was a sizable un-panicked group that called BS, including myself. Does that make me more Presidential in caliber than Hillary? Well, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

That ad doesn' scare me, or impress me. It pisses me off. It is a Rovian piece of crap, designed to do exactly the same thing the Republicans have engaged in for the last decade or more. Fear mongering by a Democratic candidate should be enough to disqualify that candidate within the Party. It won't; there are Chicken Littles, plenty enough to play to. How about you, just how scared are you?

***Update***
I've just sat and listened to Pat Buchanan (on MSNBC) call this ad the "right" thing to do, does it tell you something? Somethng bad? People wonder why I've been anti-Hillary since the beginning of her declaration.

Hillary's Foreign Policy Chops, I Got Dressed Up

It's 3:00 AM and the phone rings...in the White House...and who do you want answering it??? The asked for answer is a gal whose foreign policy experience consists of shaking hands and getting dressed up, and who booted the Authorization of Use of Force vote. Now certainly she's met some people, from a position of no responsibility or authority, meaning exactly not one darn thing. "Hi, I'm Hillary, Bill's wife," is not substantive nor particularly impressive as a qualification.

Now this isn't to say that Barack Obama has some serious experience, nor does it say that John McCain's stay in Hanoi Hilton counts for squat as for experience in foreign policy. Those in any position of responsibility or power for the last 7 years certainly seem to have mostly gotten it wrong, so if I were trying to hang my hat on any of that era it might be self-defeating. I'm about tired of, "I've never been President, but I'm experienced," crap. You don't know from practice how to be President except by being President, and none of these folks are or have been. For Pete's sake, Hillary had no security clearance or access to CIA Presidential briefings, she was, in fact, First Lady - the Prez's wife. It might be rude to bring up certain Presidential doings she claimed to be ignorant of, at least in the context of knowing what the hell is going on.

I want a President who has shown that they have the ability to figure things out and come up with answers, and have the nuts to do it publicly. Hillary Clinton's big foray into public policy was a health care initiative, developed in secret with many of the seriously affected players excluded, it blew up in her face, unsurprisingly. Her response was to blame everybody other than herself, and she still continues to do so. "There were mistakes made," is George II's line, she should have tried something else, like, "I blew it." How about, "I apologize for the Iraq War vote?" Nope, it's BushCo across the board, I never screwed it up, the media is against me, blah, blah.

John McCain scares the snot out of me, he can't keep anything straight on the "Express," and he's headed out BushCo road. It's time for Hillary to take a lesson from the March 3 elections if she doesn't get a real mandate, do something sensible for the good of the people. The people that ad was supposed to refer to, the ordinary Americans that need something other than more BushCo. The Democratic Party she claims to care about. If she cannot get big numbers, it's time for her to show that she has at least some of that judgement thing and get out. It's not about her.

Don't bet on it.

Comments

Most of my readers know I don't "moderate" comments and I don't require agreement with my opinions. I won't tolerate outright rudeness and harsh profanity, you don't have to be sweetness and light to comment here but the place is open to anyone of any age so some self control is important.

Recently I've deleted a bunch of comments posts, not because they were something objectionable, I couldn't tell. Posting on a blog written in English with Chinese (?) characters places the blog's owner, me, in an uncomfortable position - I have no idea what the contents are and as such, they go away. I don't require proficiency in English, read some of the comments, but some version of English is required. If you have something to add, please let us in on it.

News Flash, GWB Campaigning For Obama

Maybe you're thinking you've missed a news story, nope, you've seen it. Barack Obama has repeatedly stated he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions, so George II has stepped up to help him according to Reuters .

"I'm not suggesting there's never a time to talk, but I'm suggesting now is not the time ... to talk with Raul Castro," Bush told a White House news conference after being asked about Obama's willingness to meet with the new Cuban president, Raul Castro.

"It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity," Bush added.

"I believe Senator Obama better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's ... nomination yet," Bush added.

If you're thinking "I don't see him helping" you might be missing the dynamics, if a guy with less than 30% of the public thinking he's doing a good job says you're screwing up, that is darn good validation. Most of us have seen just exactly how good BushCo foreign policy has worked out and if they don't like it, that negativity is a pretty wonderful thing to have.

Now Hillary has to be upset that she wasn't attacked, but that attack would have had to involve plagarism of BushCo policies. That may be some of the press unfairness they've been complaining about. I'm not sure how to work it around to that, but I'm sure the pros will be able to manage. It apparently is unfair that she went from the de facto nominee to a near dozen loser and the news reported it...

Ohio Democratic Debate

Hillary starts out in the hole with me, I admit it. I have disliked her version of politics and her support system from early in her Senatorial career. I have found her to be a duplicitous corporate whore. She is a political opportunist who does not seem to be overly bound by principles, whether in votes or language. Obama was pretty far down my favorites list when there were more than two candidates, but then and now...

While Hillary claims the mantle of experience and credit from the Clinton Presidency, she manages to dodge the disasters and mistakes, somehow. Both are making big claims about providing health care to Americans, well, not so much. Both are handing business to health care insurers, along with the profits. This is the same old privatisation of government that BushCo has run. I'm real underwhelmed. There is the matter of Hillary thinking she can force me to buy insurance, really?

If there is a matter of debate, it seems to be whether hope on Obama's part means anymore than expelled air. I think I'll take his hope over her divisiveness, on political chops they're not really so very different. She seems to make cases about Obama not having responsibility when the vote for use of force in Iraq occurred, but the takes credit for First Lady irresponsibility to voters. I found her forcing of issues of semantics with Obama, virtually stupidly lawyerly, sort of like "what the definition of is, is." This is what things seem to degenerate into, Hillary trying to make the case that she's a fighter, not in doubt, and Obama's charm, also not in doubt. So what?
OK, I'll take Obama getting a large portion of the populace on his side over her tough guy image.

I could have given this mess a miss, real answers were short. I suppose it was no more than curiosity about just how much of a swing Hillary would try to take at Obama. Nothing that really amounted to more than game playing on her part. How well this will play with voters is open to question, they might care about of something of consequence. Pah, I'm tired of it.

I'll make guesses, I don't think this debate will win Hillary any votes she wasn't going to get anyhow and it probably didn't raise any doubts about Obama. If Hillary had something to say that was of import, this might have made a difference, I certainly didn't hear it. If there was something for a candidate to gain from having the last two debates it would seem to be for Hillary to do it. Texas looks like a tie and Ohio is narrowing Hillary's lead, a candidate who is doing everything right doesn't need debates, they simply become opportunities to do something harmful. If that equation is correct, Obama lost nothing.

The Cynicism of Politics, Welcome Back Joe McCarthy

Cynicism in politics is scarcely a something new under the sun, if you were to search back through our history as a nation there are plenty of eras with their own particularly egregious examples of phony issues, issues dressed up at something they're not, and just plain fear mongering. If you'd like one with some real contemporary parallels you need look no farther afield than Joe McCarthy, he even has a political period named for him, McCarthyism. Joe worked up some of the best confluences of all the worst of cynicism in politics.

There was an actual issue, the Soviet Union had an expressed disdain and hostility toward our economic model and our form of government. This was true to the extent that it was their expressed policy to destroy both - that would be pretty inclusive the USA. What was an issue became something else, a movement. One that tore the nation apart and was entirely political in nature and aim. The aim was political power and Party gain and to be attained at the expense of others.

The means were simple enough, start with fear of the USSR, throw in some actual espionage, dress it up as a national phenomenon, and then create the phony issue of Communist agents widely spread in the government, to the point of searching the entire nation for "fellow travelers." Quite a few did well from McCarthyism, journalists, politicians, political appointees, and even some actors in contrast to the many who were harmed. McCarthy eventually imploded but R M Nixon got his real start from the hearings. There was power to be had and it was gotten, it cost many it great deal but in the cynicism of politics the gains outweighed the loss of the citizens. Understand in the plainest terms that there were devastating consequences for individuals and also the nation's social and political structure. Un-Constitutional laws were passed and governmental - in fact Congressional - over reaching was endemic.

You could look at the War on Terror and find eerie similarities, there is an actual issue, a threat, from those outside this nation with an agenda of harm to it and the possibility of those within. What has grown from that threat is a war in Iraq, national discord, fear of attack, and governmental over reach. The political gains were large but the damage to the military and to the social discourse was immense not to mention Constitutional harm. It could be argued that the difference was McCarthy's deliberate and probably premeditated use of lies for political gain from the start. The so-called Blair Memo might raise questions in regard to BushCo. What cannot be argued is the amount of political gain for the Republicans and monetary gain for their corporate allies. The political gains, while significant, were short term, a near repeat of the history of McCarthyism. The damage to union leaders and the creative sector was longer term, the wreckage of personal reputations and organizational reputations lasted quite awhile. We may see similar consequences for media organizations and the military this time. The harm to the intelligence apparatus which was so blatantly misused continues and may have very bad long term consequences.

Possibly the most enduring damage may be to the fabric of the Constitution. The second Bush term, won largely on the strength of the fear vote, created the appointment of more Supreme Court Justices with mindsets similar to Bush administration officials and a disinclination to over rule the authoritarian measures they've instituted. This is a serious outcome, the Court is the last legal bastion of Constitutional protection, beyond the Court it falls to the Congressional delegations, which have proven nerveless and the people who have proven apathetic. Much is made of the current Presidential candidates and a probable Democratic Presidential win, however, any reaction from the candidates has been muted at best. Making an assumption that either Clinton or Obama would take on an anti-authoritarian agenda ignores both having clear anti-Second Amendment policies, which is authoritarian politics.

Because the Republican Party managed to so politicize the entire Executive structure the damage may take decades to undo. The political appointees can be replaced easily enough and because this is common policy can be done with minimal uproar. Where the rub occurs is within the ranks of career hires. These people may have been hired on the basis of political vetting rather than competence, but removing them on the basis of political orientation is rightly difficult. This creates a structural deficiency, these people will be in play, no matter the administration that replaces the current cynics. Where applicable, criminal prosecutions might encourage an out flow. Don't expect good results in the very near future, this may require a great deal of patient and dedicated opposition to the government and its arms. It will take people of nerve to fight these people every step of the way.

Oh yeah, Joe McCarthy died disgraced and drunk, RMN resigned ahead of impeachment and is still reviled, we might be able to hope for George II and his ilk to have unhappy futures - that won't fix the damage, but might serve as a warning post.

Why the Revolution Isn't Happening

My apologies to regular readers who've been wondering what happened to posting on a regular basis; I've been ill. It is actually a bit more than illness, it also has a bit to do with my having a temper. By the time I had finished watching our Senate hand George II another piece of our rights and our protection from corporate misdeeds I was furious. The fact that the House let the FISA mess expire didn't assuage the boil over. I am ordinarily quite capable of expressing my outrage without losing my mind but the combination of a rather rude flu bug and the steady Congressionally approved erosion of American liberty finally short-circuited my thinking processes. I found myself looking at the screen and keyboard with disbelief, amazement, and fury; and no words. Just stalled and stuck in place.

It might have been mitigated if either Democratic candidate had gotten up on their hind legs and said something...anything, really. It didn't help in the least that friends I like were also losing their minds, it isn't the least calming to hear, "I guess we'll just have to meet on the village green." As furious as I am, this one just pokes all the wrong buttons. As an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment I have looked carefully at the intentions behind it and the current societal conditions and the results are not calming.

While there are side benefits to hunting and other sporting activities involved in the Second Amendment, and noted at the time of the framing debate, the purposes are the defense of a "free state." The expression "free state" was a deliberate usage, it is a universal concept rather than the narrow one of, for example, 'the United States' or 'the nation' or 'the free states.' In this usage "state" is not a geographical concept but rather one of condition, the condition of all people though most particularly the citizens of the US. That there could even be discussion of this concept, much less heated debate, makes rather definite statement about the state of the American citizenry. We all abhor the pointless lawless violence the is perpetrated in our schools, malls, streets, and homes; but a large percentage of the population seems to have forgotten that life is a very risky proposition and liberty increases the risks.

Murder and mayhem are scarcely new phenomenons in this country, for a large portion of our history it was the everyday norm for many. The frontier history is more recent for those of us in the West, but the frontier started at the Atlantic Ocean at one point. The states of Ohio and Kentucky were scenes of incredibly brutal violence, primarily between settlers and Native Americans but also including the French, later the British, and even between the settlers themselves. These conditions played out in varied degrees from ocean to ocean and the institution of law enforcement (civil or military) did not cause a cessation. Being on the leading edge of human condition is an incredibly dangerous situation.

The mistake people make is in thinking that law was and is the operative concept, it is human behavior that is in operation. Giving human beings liberty is not a safe sort of thing to do, humans are incredibly variable in behavior as a species. They are given to all kinds of extremes and law does no more than punish the behaviors. Laws do not stop behaviors, moral and ethical judgements do. The judgement may come down to no more than a weighing of possible consequences, but legal sanctions are only an add on, not the determinant. Committing robbery, for example, has always had possible negative consequences which may in fact have been more serious and more sure in the absence of law. It is a fallacy to believe that the law stops people who are willing to ignore consequences. The Framers decided that the benefits to the citizenry far outweighed the risks, risks they were fully aware of.

Today, many believe that we are or should be much more secure and safe now than then. Why people believe that armed bands of depredation have disappeared or would disappear simply in the face of Law is an odd question. Behavior is linked to much more than simple legal consequences, those considerations are really at the end of the line of behavioral determinants. This attitude of safeness leads to considerable outrage when it is proven unfounded. Certainly we would rather be safe than at risk, but druthers have little to do with reality, and this is aggravated by our Founders ideas.

The Constitution sets out a framework of how to govern, the Bill of Rights sets out specified human conditions that government is not allowed to trespass on, specifically prohibited governmental behaviors because these states of being are assumed to be precedent to government. Not allowing the government to attempt to interfere in these areas was at the time the leading edge of political science, it was essentially untried and acknowledged as dangerous. It is still the leading edge of political science, there is no government on the face of the earth with stronger prohibitions of interference with human rights. There is a reason this is true, it is damned dangerous. And we're throwing it away in search of illusionary security.

This is the populace of today, the one that is willing to ignore the simple language of the Bill of Rights in order to secure the non-existent safety promised by political organizations. Contrast that desire with the at any cost defense of liberty and see which is most prevalent. The idea that Revolution could now occur on the basis of the intangibles of the Bill of Rights is awfully optimistic. The simple reason the Second Amendment is within the Bill of Rights is the ability to secure a free state of being, the ability to withstand foreign or domestic assaults on that state of being. In the face of a national military, the final ends are personal security from others and citizen security from our own government's depredations.

Inherent in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitutional document is the acknowledgement of governmental inclination to abridge the natural rights of citizens and its final dissuasion is the right to keep and bear arms. You have to look at the entire document to understand that it is essentially a blueprint for Revolution. Freedom of religion, speech, and press allow the breeding of and dissemination of Revolutionary thought. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure allows the infrastructure of Revolution. The keeping and bearing of arms allows the physical means of Revolution. Follow on through the Bill of Rights with this state of reasoning and each will reveal a tool of rebellion, and why not? These were the instigators of a Rebellion against a lawfully constituted government to whom they had historical and societal ties, deep ties. We were given all the tools needed to physically "throw the rascals out."

This is what the government is in the process of dismantling to limited citizen outcry. There is good reason why the outcry is limited, it is natural to crave security and materialistic success. Those cravings are exactly what is at risk with the form of Liberty the Framers envisioned and we are so far from the obvious frontier requirements of personal responsibility and risk that the depredation of Liberty goes almost unnoticed. This is the citizenry that we could expect to hold responsible for their own Liberty? One of the reasons guns become such a flash point is that they are an actual physical and materialistic expression of liberty, it is easier to hold in your hands a Colt than it is to wrap your mind around governmental snooping, or the funding of chosen religions. The immediate bark of a Winchester is more obvious than the whimper of corporate media in the face of governmental misdeeds. But that does not a Revolution make.

The American people sat on their hands when RICO was passed, it was not a matter of their house payments or grocery bill, even though the depredation on the Fourth Amendment was clear. It was touted as a tool applicable to the Mafia, a feared and despised minority. The problem is that however feared and despised and nastily criminal the Mafia is, they are also by definition, us. What is applicable to the Mafia is equally applicable to ordinary citizens, if the government doesn't like what you and some associates are up to you can easily find yourselves designated a criminal conspiracy and subject to some truly draconian outcomes. All it takes is a few more little baby steps like The Patriot Act or Military Commission Act to make it so. In the time of the Framers, instigators of actions allowed by RICO would have found themselves at best tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, and today almost nobody notices. This is the bunch somebody expects to build a Revolution on?

The political appellation of authoritarianism is not Party determined, it is an outlook and desire for a type of political action. The mindset seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, but that is, perhaps, due to the more heated rhetoric of the extremes of the Party and the out of control just past Republican Congress. RICO was passed by a Democratic Congress, and the more egregious offenses on the Second have been at the hands of primarily Democrats. The current Democratic Presidential candidates are both notorious gun banners and supporters of blatantly un-Constitutional gun activities. It is not a Party affiliation that is dangerous to this nation's Liberty, it is the mindset of those we elect and our refusal to hold them accountable. Authoritarians should be opposed at every pass, at every opportunity, whether their stated ends match our own or not. That is not the case, not for the ordinary gun owners, press, religions, or even speech advocates, they ignore what does not impact their pet idea. This is what Revolutionary thought has to contend with, figure a considerably larger chance if the issue was economic and materialistic. Short of another Great Depression or the grinding plutocracy of the Robber Barons expect more of the same. Toilet paper and the Constitution's parts respecting Liberty have a lot in common, in DC, Statehouses, and your houses.

Senate Leads the Way, Wiretapping

When the Framers wrote the Constitution and laid out the terms of office for the Congressional bodies they had some ideas of the consequences. They invisioned a House with short tems that was responsive to the immediate concerns of the voters and innovative in outlook. The Senate, on the other hand, with its six year terms was to be the deliberative and reflective body, the conservators of Constitutional law and source of stability. This was stood on its head this week.

The President, George II, was on the air this morning stating that the "Senate leads the way" on wiretapping and immunity and that it is critical pass this bill before it expires. There are two pieces of nonsense involved in this statement and the reporter's deferential treatment of his statements. The first is that the expiration involves no change in the underlying FISA law which allows up to 72 hours of emergency wiretapping preceding a warrant granted by a Secret Court whose level of resistance to such activities is suspect at the least. The second piece is his stated willingness to veto any bill lacking immunity for the telecoms, an extremely odd view to hold in the face of his fear mongering. The supposed financial well being of some telecoms who cooperated with the government, note that Qwest and a couple others did not, and broke long established law and privacy policies trumps the fear he's peddling. Money is more important than your "security." The President even offered to delay his African visit, he might not go on a vacation, might not if the House gets moving.

The head of BushCo claims the experts in his security apparatus all agree this is critical, a claim that was met with silent assent from reporters. There is serious evidence that what the White House and telecoms got up to was not anything like a targeted terrorist list being listened in on, rather a blanket listening program, simply sweeping up everything. This bunch that is supposed to be taken seriously on an extaordinarily sensitive issue concerning the Bill of Rights is the same group of people who authorized torture and secret prisons by the US. There are a few other balls they managed to drop while "protecting" us, Iraq WMDs, 9/11, Iran bomb research, in fact virtually every piece of fear they've touted. I'm disinclined to trust my liberties to torturers and data manipulators (um, that would be liars).

The Republicans just walked out of the House in protest of the Democrats not scrambling on the Senate version of the wiretap bill. The House had already passed a version lacking immunity. John Beohner (R-OH) is claiming a Democratic stunt, "their hands slapped away" from taking "resonsible" action. We're "at risk" and the House Republicans "will be here" until this bill is passed. Anybody know of a more partisan pol than John Boehner? Mr "Obstruct All Costs" Boehner, whose publicly leaked agenda is to block all Democratic actions, is accusing Democrats of playing politics? Less than 1/4 of our Senators give a rat's patoot about your civil liberties and commercial complicity in their violation, a whole 21 of them aren't craven traitors to their oaths to the Constitution. For some obscure reason Republicans, the supposed upholders of small limited government, have become the tools of authoritarian usurpation. In case you've missed it, their version of conservatism involves leaving the putocrats open season on the wealth of the nation and one that stomps on any behavior they find "immoral." If the NRA hadn't traded its political influence for right wing crap they'd be after our 2nd Amendment rights as hard as they're after the rest. (Republicans just walked back into the House - got their 15 minutes of camera time) Since the House has already passed a bill lacking immunity will they have the nerve to stick to their guns? With the Senate rolling over it doesn't look good, a storm of protest might...

Let's look at a couple realities regarding immunity, the BushCo claims future cooperation would be endangered by current lawsuits. What is for sure endangered is obvious violation of the law by private enities acting on the government's behest. If certain arms of the government made false representations to the telecoms there are plenty of fiscally beholden legislators to allow them suits against the goverment. If no such representations were made, if no one told the telecoms what they were getting up to was legal, they deserve to be handed their heads. This immunity process is not about protecting the telecoms, it is about protecting BushCo. Telecoms will fight tooth and nail to protect their wealth in court and if there is responsibility to be shifted on George II's regime they'll toss it overboard in a hearbeat. There may be some folks looking at actual prison time for federal felonies, that could conceiveably include the kinglet.

At some point Americans are going to have to either get along with the idea that liberty is a risky business or just give it up. BushCo is not the first to make grabs on our Rights, but they may be the most egregious offenders. I am pretty certain Americans only take this kind of thing seriously when it involves their pet Rights and by the time it does, they'll just roll over. Some won't, but they'll just be labeled loons and be ignored by lemming majority. The saving grace in this assesment is that the American Revolution was started by a cadre of loons.

Ashcroft Defends Bush, and the Indefensible

"The president of the United States has been among the most respectful of all leaders ever engaged in the responsibility of fighting for freedom,'' Ashcroft said, and has been "most respectful in terms of respecting the civil liberties and rights of individuals while engaged in the important task of fighting for freedom."

This is John Ashcroft's version of George II facing the evil dragon with his gleaming silver sword egraved with crosses and the logo "For God and GOP," told to the Missouri Republicans attending the party's statewide Lincoln Days festivities this weekend. You surely don' think he tried to palm this hooha off on reasonable people. If he comes off sounding like a complete ninny in this little report don't blame The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, honestly they played it straight. There is just so much there, well, not there with John Ashcroft, that goofiness is almost guaranteed.

John makes the point that W Wilson and FDR during WWI and WWII engaged in wiretapping and George II has been soooooo restrained. Well, he does fail to mention little nitpicking details like Declarations of War, stuff like that. He does fail to mention that he's been humping for immunity for corporations that violated the law, a law so lax that the government is allowed to violate Constitutional restrictions for 72 hours before asking for a warrant from a Secret Court. Try to wrap your head around this, there is a Secret Court available only to the Government, not for us citizen yokels, only the very special class of government citizens. George II isn't to blame for the existance of this abomination, he's to blame for not being able to stay within those ludicrous bounds.

Bush "respects liberty so profoundly that he has protected it and has safeguarded civil liberties more than any other president in wartime that I know of,'' Ashcroft said.

I am surprised that John Ashcroft keeps managing to live up to he reputation for stupidity, you would think that bar was set a little high for anyone with even a modicum of success in politics. I realize that he couldn't beat a dead man in an election and that he's the guy who publicly hung a drape over Justice, but you'd think...

If you were to try really hard to shut your eyes and scream, "Nyah, nyah, nyah," with your fingers in your ears, you still might catch on to a couple things. Habeas Corpus is entirely dependent on the "kinglets" whim, he says laws regarding the sanctity of your communications are subject to his whim, he says restrictions on torture are subject to his whim, he says the Secret Police (FBI) can break into your home and snoop to find evidence to support a warrant, he says a lot of things that would have gotten him hung not too long after the Constituion was signed. If you think the signers' heads wouldn't have exploded if this crap were explained to them, you've been reading toilet paper instead of history. Confounded George III was run out of the Colonies for considerably less at a hugely larger cost in treasure and life.

DeFazio Weighs In On DC Ban

Over at Blue Steel Democrats you'll find an article detailing the members of Congress who have filed a brief supporting plaintiff Heller in the DC gun ban case, including Rep. DeFazio (OR-D). Head on over there for more.

The Politics of Prosperity, Bush and Clinton

Since George II is talking about prosperity to the right nuts today and Hillary just got done talking about a return to their prosperit, let's take a look at it. I'm going to reference the US Census Bureau's study and I'll use figures that provide an overlook of periods. You will note that the dates involved use periods the figures can reasonable take responsibility for. You have to understand the stance this blog has taken, which is that nobody in very recent history has shown any concern for the entire economic strata.

George II's record actually reeks, these numbers only slightly reflect the bias, the top 0.1% are not addressed and the actual bias in these numbers is striking. The problem is that data on this piece is sketchy at best outside a narrow range of time. The NYT report concerning 2005 is only a snapshot:

While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.

The gains went largely to the top 1 percent, whose incomes rose to an average of more than $1.1 million each, an increase of more than $139,000, or about 14 percent.

The new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
***
The disparities may be even greater for another reason. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that it is able to accurately tax 99 percent of wage income but that it captures only about 70 percent of business and investment income, most of which flows to upper-income individuals, because not everybody accurately reports such figures.

Moving from there to numbers concerning the more ordinary taxpayers and covering current Bush years we'll use 2000-2006 the last year available. I'll use the US Census method of 20% of income tables and bottom of top 5% in constant '06 dollars. So per Census:

(Bottom) '06/ 20,035 '00/ 20,981 change/ -946 or -4.5%
(2nd) '06/ 37,774 '00/ 38,637 change/ -863 or -2.2%
(3rd) '06/ 60,000 '00/61,086 change/ -1086 or -1.7%
(4th) '06/ 97,032 '00/95,773 change/ +1259 or +1.3%
(-5%) '06/ 174,012 '00/170,026 change/ +3986 or +2.3%
(1%) '04-'05 note that is a single year change/ +14% versus six years above

George II wants to tout his prosperity, by percentages of income 60% of American taxpayers have lost ground under BushCo. His definition of prosperity leave something lacking and he's telling the CPAC that we need more of it and apparently more or the lack.

Enter Hillary and Bill, she's taken experience credentials from Bill and evidently that experience foreshadows her policies and their outcomes:

(Bottom) '00/20,981 '92/17,741 change/ +3240 or +18.3%
(2nd) '00/37,774 '92/33,989 change/ + 3785 or +11.1%
(3rd) '00/60,000 '92/53,363 change/ +6637 or +12.4%
(4th) '00/95,773 '92/81,673 change/ +14,100 or +17.3%
(-5%) '00/170,026 '92/139,419 change/ +30,607 or +22%
(avg 1%) '00/313,469 '92/181,904 change/ + 131,565 or +73.3% Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)

I will note again that once the bottom of the top 5% is reached the different taxable income rules and reporting rules mask the size of the gains, capital gains are not paid until realized, meaning paper income is not measured until "cashed in." Please also note that if you are trying to measure Clinton growth versus BushCo growth that the Clinton years measure 8 years of growth versus 6 years for BushCo. The point of the exercise is internal growth and where it occurred and while measuring growth the growth is Adjusted Gross from tax tables which have changed over time meaning that if a larger portion of income is measured against taxes "growth" is shown where reality is something different.

Now if you'd like a snapshot of the bottom of the top 5% here is 1967 to 1992, a quarter century:

(1967) 98,012 (1992) 139,419 change +41,407 or +42.2%,
(1967) 98,012 (1975) 107,102 change +9,090 or +9.3% which is an 8 year span.

What you need to understand about gains and prosperity that has been claimed by either Clinton or BushCo is that it has had much more to do with the wealthy than anyone else. The bottom threshold of the top 5% is obviously well-t0-do but it does not equate to wealth, once 1% figures are reached one does begin to see actual wealth although it is the top 0.1% that controls the wealth of the country in a meaningful way. It should be obvious to anyone with a smattering of political awareness that Republican focus is on that group, what is not so obvious due to rhetorical masking and Party perceptions is that under some Democratic administrations the emphasis is also on the wealthy. Dare I mention the Clinton name?

Peace and Prosperity, Bush Style

"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," the president said AP reports a pre-release of GeorgeII's speach to the Conservative Political Action Convention. That would be the bunch Romney addressed while he withdrew stating he was saving the country from the success of those who'd surrender to terrorism - Democrats. Now if you ain't a plutocrat you may have missed that prosperity and if you've payed any attention at all, you may have noticed a substantial lack of peace since 2002. "So with confidence in our vision and faith in our values, let us go forward ... fight for victory ... and keep the White House in 2008." That is in itself an obvious recipe for success, after all most people think things are just fine.

"Our critics had a different view," he said. "They looked at rising violence in Iraq and declared the war was lost. Some concluded the surge had failed before it had even fully begun. ... We stood our ground and we are seeing the results. ... The progress in Iraq is fragile and there are tough days ahead, yet even the enemy recognizes that they are on the wrong side of events."

I guess we can take it as blind luck he didn't don a flight suit and ...

At some point after 1/20/09 this guy will be immaterial beyond repairing the wreckage he's made of peace and prosperity.

If you think there aren't numbers, here you go, up posts.

Romney Quits

I just watched the live feed from the big Conservative love fest as Romney withdrew from the Primary. It was the usual red meat stuff, lower taxes, get rid of regulations, weed whack the government, terror, terror, Defeatocrats. So to save the nation from the Democrats in this time of war he's quitting. The folks at the Conservative Political Action Conference were displeased, in fact booed McCain when he mentioned having some disagreements with him.

I'm sure people tired of hearing serial lying on the news won't miss Mitt. It does give McCain the ability to start mounting a national campaign and preserve some Primary money which will not help Democrats who are still battling it out. The media is already making a rather large deal out of this. I am less convinced. McCain has to have that 'conservative' base come out for him in November so he will have to play to them and that short circuits him with Democratic leaning voters. While the media talks about saving resources they seem to forget the amount of interest the Democrats are generating in themselves.

I don't think Hillary is a good candidate to run against McCain, she is too far into his camp in some regards to bring a split and too disliked by non-affiliated voters. Obama seems able to tap into the independents and still keep the more left side of the Democrats activated. (major time out, wife stuck the SSR in the snow) In the end run, this doesn't hurt Democratic campaigns, whoever wins this is Democrat versus Republican as far as campaigning goes so Hillary versus Obama still generates interest, publicity, and contact. The real drawback for the Democrats is that the Republicans won't have Mitt's surrogates busy tearing up the party, too bad, I was just starting to enjoy myself.

One happy result may be people will stop coming here to see if Mitt is gay.

I Guess We Did Torture

Just post WWII:

Sergeant Masatoshi Sawamura was convicted and sentenced to 30 years hard labor for, among other things, "forcing PW to stand at attention for a long period of time, sometimes in cold weather without sufficient clothing and on one occasion, in the nude; throwing a bucket of ice cold water over PW in cold weather;water treatment which entailed forcing water down PWs throat and nostrils using among others a hose, tubes; picking up and throwing PW to the ground; banging head against a wall; raising and lowering a sword on a PWs neck in an effort to make him give information."

Reuters reports that George II instructed Michael Hayden to testify to Congress regarding waterboarding, and he did:

Hayden's admission, the first time a U.S. official publicly disclosed the number of people subjected to waterboarding and named them, drew calls for a criminal investigation. Critics worldwide condemn waterboarding as torture, but the Bush administration has refused to define it as such.

Numbered among the critics worldwide would evidently be the US Military Commission that tried and convicted and sentenced Sgt. Sawamura among others. Neither George W Bush nor the USA was around when the Spanish Inquisition practiced waterboarding, but you might note that one of the all purpose terms for inhuman cruelty and torture is "The Inquisition."

Now somehow you're to be reassured by the statement that we haven't done so for five years, which somehow minimizes the fact. But before you get too comfortable BushCo mouthpiece Tony Fratto noted,

"It is dependent on the circumstances."

I'll just bet that makes you feel better. When Michael Mukasey had to testify before Congress,

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, opened Wednesday's hearing by saying, "This administration has so twisted America's role, law and values that our own State Department, our military officers and, apparently, America's top law enforcement officer, are now instructed by the White House not to say that waterboarding is torture and illegal."

"Never mind that waterboarding has been recognized as torture for the last 500 years," Leahy said. "Never mind that President Teddy Roosevelt properly prosecuted Americans soldiers for this more than 100 years ago."

The question that has to occur to you is just exactly how it is that law suddenly became conditional? If you follow the reasoning of BushCo, there are things that are torture only if it is convenient for them to be torture. If it becomes in "circumstances" convenient to torture then it is not torture. I'm pretty sure Sgt Sawamura had found circumstances that made it convenient to engage in behavior that the US (in a more honorable time) found worthy of 30 years hard labor. George II might find that kind of labor a bit less fun than clearing ranch brush for photographers.

Sometimes it almost seems as though history has a sense of humor. A naval aviator shot down by fellow soldiers of Sgt Sawamura becomes President, has a kid who hides out in Texas during a war as an aviator and then becomes the President who engages in the same behavior Sgt Sawamura did. Ah, it must warm a father's heart with pride...

***Update

The Dick just got done calling it a tougher program for tougher customers, so those tough US soldiers who wouldn't cooperate with the Japanese deserved it? Seems we were bombing the snot out of Tokyo and killing a bunch of soldiers on islands across the Pacific...what an asshole.

Rush and McCain

Holy cow, you'd think John dumped one of the Rushbo's Oxy pill bottles, talk about unhinged on his Monday show... In case some of you dangerous traitorous Democrats hadn't noticed John McCain is out to destroy the Republican Party in revenge of his 2000 S Carolina loss. In fact he'll see to it that, "The Republican Congress will effectively be neutered." I don't want to throw a wet rag on his addled pate but chances are real good that voters will continue that particular process they started in '06. Not to mention that the squealing coming from him is rather indicative of that condition.

ABC News didn't seem nearly as amused as I am when they noted Rush warning that McCain is a "liberal" though you know as well as I it was pronounced librule. They didn't note whether he slobbered on himself when he accused McCain of courting the pro-choice voters though how that works with McCain's staunch anti-abortion stance must be a product of unspilled pill bottles. Rush wasn't quite as narrow as to just hit McCain with spray, Fred Barnes (for whom I have about as much respect - his wisdom probably comes from martini glasses rather than 'script bottles) came in for some for having the temerity to suggest conservatives give McCain a chance for reaching out to them. "Fred, you used to be one of us!" Limbaugh said. "Now you seem to be all for Republicans having its liberal wing too."

Not to pile on Rush, but I seem to remember your rants having the liberals as the only ones who coddled drug addled loons, you know, sort of like fat addicted radio hosts would be. As a dedicated Republican water carrier I'd sort of think that liberal Republican wing would be a natural home for you. I don't know, seems that devil weed must be worse than Oxycontin though the number of felonies involved in getting a weed buzz are significantly fewer, maybe it involves melanin levels.

The old standby never is far from the hand of Rush, the effete elite liberal media is naturally involved in the conspiracy, "It was just six months ago that if a candidate was endorsed by the liberal media we were instantly suspicious of them," now he said, "we've got drive-by media organizations having orgasms about McCain." You could take that as a reference to the NYT or maybe a slew of West Coast papers from Seattle to LA, but if they're not owned by Moonies they're suspect. We all know what the Oregonian is like, I mean after all look at that left wing nut cake Saxton they endorsed for Governor - you know the one, the moderately liberal Kulongoski wiped the floor with in Blue Oregon. That would be the same left loon Oregonian that endorsed McCain.

Probably McCain's worst sin is, "He's going to reach out to Democrats in Congress," which is entirely reasonble for somebody who wants troops in Iraq for the next one hundred years. Yessiree, that ought to get some slowdancing going on, right after the pro-life anti-gay Christer rant he'll give. I knew a guy who was crushed by a 6,000 pound gear that fell off a chainfall and spent a year in the hospital getting addicted to Oxycontin and even awhile after cleaning up he'd have "spells." That's a polite Southern word isn't it, Rush? Kinda State of Misery sort of word, a down home Cape Girardau effete child of privilege sort of word? A cyste on the butt 101st chAirborne microphone warrior sort of word?

I don't like John McCain's politics one bit, but while he was busy getting knocked out of the sky this faux good ole boy was nursing a cyste where his brain lives. Oh yeah, it's a serious thing those cystes, about one day in the hospital and it's gone sort of life threateningly oh no sort of military 4F sort of thing. I've got to admit, considering all their problems going into an election McCain doing their President's bidding on immigration and a toothless campaign finance law are definitely the biggies. Is it going to bother me a bunch to watch these rabbid rabbits tear themselves apart from the inside out? Only if they start handing out purple heart bandaides to McCain supporters. This is going to be fun in a sick sort of way, you know, like a multi-car NASCAR crash replay in slooooowwww motion.

House Ethics Committeee - Party On

The original intent of the House Ethics Rules was to cut down on lobbyist influence at Conventions banned the lavish VIP galas honoring a Representatives, obviously the idea was going to cut down on some partying, maybe not. The committee has created a loophole of tractor trailer dimensions. The rule is interpreted as meaning parties honoring specifice Representatives and even more broadly as prohibiting only parties sponsored directly by lobbying firms.

Gee, that ought to cut down on the party graft, it isn't like lobbyists aren't any good at finding third party fund dispersers. It also doesn't seem particularly effective if a couple Representatives are lumped together, like say the Nevada delegation. Not that there would be common interests to be influenced in an entire delegation...

Well here's a hat tip to the NYT Editorial Board for noticing and having something to say.

Blog Roll Expansion

During the New Year and this last week Jon Swift provided access to quite a few of the lesser rated Blogs and during both I've expanded my blog roll links with a number of them. I ask you to please go see what's going on with these folks' endeavors.

Mukasey and the Law

When Sen. Ted Kennedy asked Michael Mukasey about torture and got one evasion after another, he asked the question, "Let me ask you this, would waterboarding be torture if it was done to you?" Mukasey's response says something, "I would feel that it was." Yes, sir; that is exactly the point of the exercise, it is because we all would feel it if done to us.

Just so Michael is real clear on the implications of that statement, I will speak for myself. If you do it to me, yes I will consider it torture. Given that through that action you will have removed yourself from my definition of humanity, it would be a very bad idea to ever let me exercise any freedom of action, afterwards. I promise that to the absolute extent of my ability I would make everyone responsible pay for it. Understand the implications of removing yourself from the ranks of humanity in service of power, you become a bug, to be dealt with in that regard.

You might think that a law abiding citizen would be constrained by legal considerations, you abrogated those, you and those you enable. There is an element of absolute horror involved in abusing a helpless human being, someone so absolutely in your power that you can do exactly whatever you decide to do. Law is an artificial construct designed to let us live with each other, it is artificial in the sense that it holds no moral force and constrains through penalties, penalties you will have made moot through torture. What can you do, kill? You will, through waterboarding already have made that a previous reality.

For a more reasoned look at Michael Mukasey's legal views you might check out David Bromwich over at HuffPo. I certainly don't disagree with him, I just thought somebody ought to point out the natural outcomes of such behavior, really sucks.

Stark Co, Ohio Strip Search and Assault

If you think I have polite words to describe my reaction to this, you've got an exaggerated view of my vocabulary. This came to my attention through Crooks and Liars and it is...well you decide what it is.



I am pretty well acquainted with most of our local law enforcement, it's a small town, and I'll bet you odds their reaction would be real close to mine. I hope to God it would be.

***Addendum

If you have blog space, make this stink across the nation, credit C&L.

Oregon Domestic Partnership - A Go

US District Judge Michael Mosman stunned Oregon's gay community when he put the State's Domestic Partnership law on hold prior to its effective date. He has now tossed the plaintiffs' arguments and allowed it to go forward, effective Friday afternoon. The quickness of the ruling came as a surprise to many. While Mosman stated that there were issues in the suit that the SoS should find troubling and address, he noted that there is no Constitutional right to have a signature verified.

This won't lay the issue to rest. Sadly. Proponents of the ban on gay marriage stated repeatedly the they were only against marriage, not civil unions. That may have been true of some spokespersons, but evidently not exactly everybody. How about a reality check of the nonsense.

Marriage in State terms, is a civil contract. It is not in the least religious. The State magnanimously allows religious people to conduct services and finalize the agreement, but the State holds absolutely no interest in the Godly sanctimony of marriage. Their only interest is in the civil contract that subjects the parties to certain responsibilities and grants certain privileges in binding form - civil form. This is entirely an issue between the State and the involved parties, God doesn't get any play whatever, is totally ignored, is flatly pointless and irrelevant. All of the Godly part is entirely the responsibility of the parties involved in joining in contract.

There is, of course, the unfortunate similarity in the names of the institution in both civil and religious ceremonies. Marriage. Churches and religious adherents mean one thing and the State means something quite different by the same term. I've had friends suggest that all State marriages should be called civil unions to get the State out of the God business and end confusion. I object, there are plenty of words in the English language with two meanings and the State has never been in the God end of this. We don't need new words, we need a citizenry that knows its head from a hole in the ground, how about it? I am so tired of treating symptoms instead of the ailment.

Now this blog has continuously taken the same stand in this regard, as a commentary and as a political campaign site :
The same privileges and responsibilities are due to all law abiding Oregonians, and in fact all US citizens of the same description. Any failure of the government to do so, or to in fact deny such is unconscionable. It is institutionalized discrimination of the worst sort. I do not propose to interfere with anyone's religious freedom, or their ability to speak rudely or think stupidly, but I cannot support taking any of that into the arena of civil contracts. It is, flatly, none of your damn business.

I select my friendships and relationships on the basis of character, I have good friends who are gay and I have good friends who are homophobic and most who don't give a damn. I happen to be among the latter, I don't give a damn. My good friends who are gay, happen to be gay in my mind, they are not defined by that. That may disappoint them, because it is fairly central to their being, but I just don't care. I am entirely heterosexual, I don't have questions or doubts about it, so it just isn't an issue with me. It is, in fact, so basic as to be of no meaning whatever. It does not define me, I simply am that. My eyes are hazel, if yours are not, I simply don't care, mine are still hazel and I'm also not impressed that yours are also.

I do what I can to oppose stupidity and meanness, it seems to be a never ending battle. I'm glad for gays that they've gotten their civil unions, but it is thin gruel in the battle. Make no mistake, the battle isn't about gays, it is about our government acting in a proper manner. If you want to be ignorant and mean, that is your business, but I can't abide it in government.

Blogroll Amnesty Anniversery

Jon Swift notes February 3rd is an important day in the evolution of Blogging, it is the day of the bloggletting, excuse me, bloodletting of A lister blogrolls. Atrios of Eschaton began it by deleting a bunch of blogs, the amnesty apparently was his own as the non-A listers went away. The new trend continued all the way to Daily Kos, those clogged rolls were gone, replaced with A-listers linking A-listers.

Jon's very nearly A-list blog (more readers in an hour than I have in a week) instituted its own Amnesty:

Although as a conservative I am opposed to amnesty when it comes to Vietnam War draft dodgers, illegal immigrants and old people, when it comes to blogrolling I am surprisingly liberal, as you can see from the Blogroll Policy I have posted on my sidebar. "I will add anyone to my blogroll who adds me to theirs, whether conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian or Albigensian, with the exception of spam or porn blogs or anything else your mother would be embarrassed to read," it states. I oppose litmus tests for blogs as well as Supreme Court Justices.

You will find this humble effort on Jon's Blogroll - fairly quickly, but if you're farther down the alphabet it takes a scroll bar to view the roll. This may be a draw back. You will have noticed, if you're a regular reader, that my blogroll of 27 recently expanded by 10 with asterisks that were my selections from Jon's Blogroll's self-selected best. (I guess that's second hand self-selected self-selected - or something odd) My Blogroll doesn't contain any of the big A-listers, I figure if you're a reader of them you know where to find them and these out of the way spots hold some gems you wouldn't see otherwise. The biggest benefit to being on Jon's Blogroll is invitations to post for links, such as the self-selecteds or this post. It is fairly easy to tell when Jon has linked, my readership doubles or more. This site is pretty far down the pecking order, not a Z-list, it is in the top 200K and I have seen a 6M before on Technorati so a P-list?

I seem to have driven off some political readers in the last couple months, gun article Googles are running 3/5 or higher and BlueOregon link-ins are way off. Maybe my skepticism of the two leading Democratic presidential candidates has something to do with it. Well, the US House & Senate Sgt at Arms haven't lost interest. I'm still running numbers that would have pleased me spitless two years ago.

Back to the topic at hand, I do use Blogrolls from sites that interest me and I find interesting sites doing it. I hope mine gets some usage, if you haven't cruised it some, you've missed out. Doing the research to write this thing cuts into my cruising. There is something self-reinforcing in the big A-lists cross referencing each other, some of the high listed blogs got there as much by happy accident as good writing or well thought out analysis and nothing breeds success like success. My Blog's peculiar outlook has a lot to do with its readership numbers, but so does lack of exposure. (there are really good writers with small numbers, not that I include myself)

Consistently interesting blogs aren't that common, it is an uneven terrain out here. I've tried to put some of those into my blogroll while considering my readership's interests so that those folks can benefit from some increased exposure. While you're reading one of these P-list blogs it is important to remember that some real effort goes into doing this stuff consistently. Your three minute read may have involved hours of work, most of us are rank amateurs as writers/editors/publishers and we are all of those.

I try to be inclusive in my rolls, I think most people linking me are linked, so here's the deal: at any time you find something you particularly like, consistently, give me the link and I'll take a look and include it if I agree. It's not the mutual linking of Jon's (and Skippy), I don't have the room or even the inclination to have a mile long roll, but it is something and a way to recognize good efforts that are otherwise ignored.



If you've been under the impression that Blogging is a real easy way to reach large numbers of people, let me point out that being linked in very complimentary terms in an article on a very big A-list blog generated a spike of about 200 verifiable hits to this site. One or more of my headlines has been viewed 9400 some times in the past 7 days on Reuters.com and an infinitesimal percentage of those views resulted in hits. So when I talk about exposure being a big deal, I'm not exaggerating. My Archives, particularly "Ruger No1 in 45-70 Govt" get many more hits each day than current postings not to mention some truly strange Google hits that come in by accident. (very accidentally, very, very)

***Update***

Jon's article is here and here's what Skippy has to say, I include these because they were partners in crime, so's to speak, in rectifying the massacre. If you come in from one of those sites and ask for a link, I'll put it up and I'd appreciate the same, but I'll ask anyone coming in to at least take a look at another article to get a feel for this place, you may or may not want to link this site once you've had a taste of it. For my readers, please do the same if you pop over to Jon's and if you find something you really like, let me know. I have to admit that my cruising time has dropped with the demands of posting time.

And thanks for coming in, we've got politics, guns, and some fast cars and other eclectic stuff.