Maher wasn't racist on Leno

I missed Bill Maher on The Tonight Show moments ago, but to see how he did, I went straight to Twitter for the commentary. What I found, in addition to a few hateful Republicans from Texas and Louisiana (not surprising), were complaints about Maher's choice of language. He apparently referred to Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained.

Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.

Let me set you folks straight, ok?

Here's why it was not racism.

President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained are all terms representing how Republicans feel about Obama. Bill Maher is merely a voice describing the situation that is the racist attitude toward Barack Obama coming from the Right Wing types. Those nicknames are characterizations of Right Wing angst, not of Left Wing racism. Anyone who thinks such commentary is racist is a complete idiot, disconnected from the national dialogue present on the conservative side of the fence. 

In other words, you clearly don't get it. 

Maher does not believe Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, or Django Unchained. He understands that Republicans think Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. There are two Obamas. One is the real Obama. The other is Fantasy Obama, the one Republicans have made up in order to validate their disproportionate fear of a black man. Fantasy Obama is this big scary black guy who represents every stereotype they believe about black people.

It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.

Any questions?

Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem. 

Tell me if you'd prefer that he would say "Big scary black guy" instead of the other terms. At what point does the message lose its value? The racism inside the GOP has to be called out. We can't sit here and say nothing.

(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)

What if there's a tie?

In past presidential elections, I do not recall so much emphasis being placed on the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College on election day. Over the past two weeks, it seems as if that's what 75% of news sources mention, in passing or directly. I'm beginning to wonder why.

If I go to Gallup or 270towin and read their front page, in a matter of seconds, I'm going to come across talk of a tie. Should there be a tie, the reality is, the House picks the winner. Right now, the House is controlled by Republicans. That means Romney wins.

So do these people know something we don't? According to 270towin, there are 32 combinations in which a tie might occur as of today with about eleven states up in the air.

It's almost as if they are giving us a preview for the news coverage we will receive on election night and the morning following the election. It's almost as if the election is going to be rigged and then stolen. Imagine the hubbub should the House pick Romney. It will be no different than the events which transpired in 2000 when George W. Bush was handed the big win by the Supreme Court. The people didn't make this decision. The Electoral College didn't even make that decision. It went to the Supreme Court. In this year's scenario, it would be left up to the House, not the people.

It would further discredit the validity of the Electoral College and invigorate the push for our elections to rely solely upon the popular vote instead. I don't know about you, but I don't like the way the tie scenario is being fed to us. It's very suspicious that this possible outcome is so common a topic this year.

I mean, according to 270towin, Obama has a 74% chance of getting to 270 and Romney only has a 24% shot at the same goal. Why, then, does it even come to mind that the election would end in a tie?

Is this just media hype? Imagine the division in this country should the House be given the choice. Imagine just how much finger pointing and complaining we will have to endure over the next four years. Imagine all the doubt and distrust something like this would create.

A tie? That'd put us in some deep doo doo. Let's hope there is a clear winner on election night. I do not want to put up with a partisan decision. I would rather see the Electoral College play out as intended.

An Unstable Conservative Mind

While I will preface this post with an understanding that mental illness and violent rhetoric exists on both sides of the aisle, there is an overwhelming trend among the conservative ilk that continually makes liberals like me fear for our safety.

Tonight, on my local Craigslist, someone posted the following rant displayed in the screen capture below.

I reported it to Craigslist via their more advanced help system because I knew merely flagging the post as prohibited did not address the issue. Myself, nor Craigslist, should ignore violence or threatening behavior.

That said, I have a strong suspicion Craigslist will do nothing about this, so I am posting a screen shot of the deplorable post here in hopes of shedding light on the violence brewing in America, namely the South. I strongly feel that this person is a threat to the safety of those around him/her and saying nothing, in my opinion, is as unacceptable as their post. I firmly believe this person either needs to be in jail or helped by our mental health system.

The Southern Poverty Law Center might be particularly interested in this, as might the FBI.

Link to the post: http://shreveport.craigslist.org/rnr/3346039249.html

I contacted this person via email in hopes of drawing out his identity and more of his insane ramblings. To my surprise, he replied. I have his email and his name, so I know exactly who he is.

The Two Biggest Problems With Clint Eastwood's Speech

While the internet is still buzzing from the hilarity that was Clint Eastwood's rambling on the RNC stage at the convention, two things stood out in my mind as I watched the coverage and replay of the poorly timed and poorly placed attempt at Republican enthusiasm. While I agree with Bill Maher that producing comedy with an empty chair is a difficult task and that Eastwood pulled that part off, I did not find the act itself to be of the quality or decency that we should expect in a campaign.

Let me explain what I mean.

Al Sharpton has already brought my first point to our attention, as have many others. The speech itself was disrespectful to the office of the President of the United States of America. Now before you get your conservative panties and secret mormon underwear in knots, let's cover one very important retort that I've seen. Yes, democrats have been known to say and do some very unkind things when talking about President Bush. This behavior, however, does not excuse you or Clint Eastwood from behaving the same way. You should strive to be a better person than your rivals, no?

Okay, then. So the fact that Clint Eastwood not only spoke in a condescending tone to an imaginary President Obama, but adding profanity to the mix made this performance especially disrespectful.  Had President Obama been in that chair, Clint Eastwood would have conducted himself in a more respectful tone.

This leads to my second impression of this crap.

This is the only way conservatives like to debate President Obama. Not only have they spent the last four years (election season and post-election first term) creating a fake story line about President Obama with which they have armed their dittohead minions for the sole purpose of making him a one term president, but in this instance, they created a situation where a debate without a retort from their opposition served only to fit their hate-laden fancy. They could argue with an invisible man from the comfort of their own echo chamber. Difference of opinion? What's that? It's what Republicans refuse to acknowledge in the name of arrogance and self preservation. This was hardly a respectable way to frame the campaign, let alone a debate. In that setting, no humor exists. It's a shameful representation of what the Republican Party has become.

Conservatives do not wish to debate the President on his home turf. No. This was an act of blatant cowardice. If they can't muster up the courage to debate President Obama face to face, then that makes them cowards. That makes Clint Eastwood a coward. To pull a line from Back to the Future III, Clint Eastwood is the biggest yellow belly in the West.

When in history has either party talked this way to a sitting US president? Oh yes, this might have to do with the fact that modern conservatives question the legitimacy of this presidency, from birthers, to people who think he is Muslim, to racists, and to people who think he stole the election. This kind of disrespectful behavior is rooted in the foul mentality that is the hatred modern Republicans have for President Obama. It's disgusting. We're Americans for crying out loud. Act like it.

That is all.

More threats to Obama on Topix

One of the saddest excuses for an open forum is a site called Topix. On Topix, people from small towns spread gossip about one another, but the hate and vitriolic rhetoric we came to know from the new breed of Conservative fringe voter is openly expressed on Topix as well. One of the more concerning trends is the open willingness to post threats to President Obama.

Here's just one more example.


I've reported it to Topix and it will probably be removed, but I doubt the FBI will be notified, so I am posting it here.

Such a sad time in America where people post such things, isn't it?

After Labor Day

President Obama has recently been criticized for saying he has a plan to create jobs, but that he will reveal it after Labor Day. People want to hear the plan right now. People are asking why he has to wait until after Labor Day to reveal this plan.

Let me tell you why, peons.

Congress comes back from their little vacation after Labor Day. They're on break. Obama isn't. His trip is not a vacation. It's in his job description.

Judging by the words and phrases in his speech, I'd say that his plan has to do with infrastructure and construction jobs, in addition to payroll tax cuts. Anyone who has actually listened to him speak over the past few days should have that understanding, too. If you're not a listener, there's a good chance you are still asking what the plan is. If you're not paying attention, you might miss all the Republicans saying No to these proposals.

But it doesn't stop there. What is the point in announcing the plan now? Congress has to approve it. That's how our government works. If you don't understand that, go back to grade school. The House and Senate need to fine tune whatever proposal President Obama has regarding jobs. Obama doesn't make the modifications to a plan and send it out to the masses. Our government relies on Congress to do all of that. Then it goes out to the masses.

If President Obama tells you exactly what his plan is, what are the odds Congress will change it before all is said and done? I'd say, given the way the Republicans handled the HCR debate, the chances are pretty good Obama's jobs plan will not look exactly how he envisioned it. In other words, telling you the specifics now is useless. The details will change. I mean, Republicans are already saying No. Do they stand up in front of us and say they have a plan? No.

Maybe John Boehner should drop his plan in the mail. Let me know when it arrives on your doorstep, fellow citizen.

I'm just calling it like I see it, folks. That's how our government works. If you want to yell and complain, aim those screams at Congress. They're on vacation right now. If you want something done before Labor Day, Congress has to get its ass in gear. Tell President Obama you want members of Congress back on the job right now.

51 to 38 and how these polls don't matter

For those of you paying close attention to the Republican presidential candidate field, the polls regarding who will be the best possible option in 2012 might be grabbing your attention. The polls tend to imply that, although front-runners exist on the Right, when put up against President Obama, none of them have a snowball's chance in Hell. The competitive nature of these elections feeds the media monster and the ultimate goal is not to report news, but generate drama to boost ratings.

What our journalists aren't considering at this point is the Electoral College. They may be talking about individual state elections, but those are primaries and the implications regarding primaries can be derived to suit any viewpoint about the general election in 2012.

While Mitt Romney may lag behind Barack Obama in what, to me, is nothing more than the popular vote, anyone who was an Al Gore supporter knows just how meaningless the popular vote can be. What we should be talking about is how voter fraud and manipulative positioning will be an issue on a state by state basis. Individual politicized initiatives always get placed on the ballot in different states to improve voter turnout in favor of one party in particular. The popular vote doesn't tell me anything. I want to see the Electoral College map for each Republican candidate who could go up against Barack Obama. Is that too much to ask?

I know. It's early. I just feel like watching any news on the 2012 race at this point is meaningless without considering the E.C.

Ron Paul Quote Contradicts His Normal Self

Ron Paul is generally seen as the spokesperson for getting government out of our lives. He is seen as the person who wants bloated rules and regulations removed, allowing businesses to operate with more freedom.

But then you have this next quote, Paul referencing President Obama in respect to the War Powers Act.

"You could say, 'Well, we have a good president, he'll do the right thing.' Well, someday you may have a president who does the wrong thing, and that's why you have rules, because you can never count on people being good people,"

Ah, yes. You cannot count on people being good people. Well, sir, we cannot count on businesses being good businesses, nor can we count on business owners being good people. Profit is a strong motivator for doing unscrupulous things. This reasoning is the whole point behind imposing restrictions on certain things. We do not live in an ideal world and when people are allowed to do as they please, there is no guarantee that they will do the right thing and innocent people often suffer for those bad choices.

Legalize heroin and in an ideal world, no, people won't run out and do heroin. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. People love their vices. People love mental escapism. People do partake. People will go out and do heroin because there is no legal accountability. People do it even with legal consequences in place, after all.

So I agree that the War Powers Act should be followed. I don't like that Obama and Congress let this get dragged out as long as it has. If Congress supports our actions in Libya, then suppor should have been issued days, if not weeks ago. The 60 day mark was hit, so the way I see it, our actions in Libya must come to a close. Of course, Harry Reid has officially said in an interview that the War Powers Act is confusing and needs revision. Maybe this is one of those instances where a revision would clarify things, but the simple take on the current situation is that 60 days is 60 days, regardless.

In other words, I'm trying to be consistent here, unlike Ron Paul. There should not be exceptions placed on States' rights vs Federal power. Government is government, local or national. People are people, State or Federal. Crooked State officials are just as bad as Federal abuses of power.

Because people are not always good people, we have the Civil Rights Act. We have Medicare. We have Social Security. We have Welfare. We have taxes. We have laws. We are trying to avoid not only unfair practices, but anarchy itself.

There will be two kinds of Deathers

At a minimum, after the death of Osama bin Laden, the conspiracy theorists will come up with at least two rants that are rooted by the same mentality.

One will be fairly straightforward. They will question whether or not Osama is really dead. Look on Twitter for the hashtag, Deathers. The conspiracy has already begun.

The second batch of Deathers simply question the motive behind the killing. They will purport that President Obama, when faced with a relatively apathetic public and opinion polls which aren't the least bit flattering, politicized the event, making him more of a political opportunist than a successful leader.

Both, sadly, hinge on the idea that President Obama is not at all trustworthy. Both rely on a general distaste for Obama that resembles not that of a partisan slant, but more of a SEC football fan. Lunacy is the only name for such assertions. From here on out, it is how I view any conspiracy theorist. No lunatic has a voice on my stage unless I am poking fun at their insanity.

Death threats against Obama should be condemned

While I must sadly preface my remarks with condemnation of the death threats made against Wisconsin lawmakers in the wake of the union busting legislation snafoo, the fact remains that, even prior to his election, Barack Obama was a target of the hate present on the Right, hate rooted in racist ideals. The vitriol within the 2008 election campaigns fed this angst and from it, we were given this new breed of Conservative called the Birther. Beyond Birthers, white supremacist groups and your run of the mill corner drug store racists have gone unpunished. When comments regarding calling for the death of a US President are made, they should be taken seriously.

Remember when the teenager posted the "Kill Bush" thing on her Myspace profile? How much attention did that receive? It made national news!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15258484/ns/us_news-security/

So where is the coverage of threats against Obama? I haven't seen many reports aside from stuff from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but anyone who frequents any political discussion board knows just how frequent such comments can be. Go on Yahoo News and read the comments. You'll find some, at least up until moderators remove them. Go on just about any forum where Conservatives comment and you'll find these sad excuses for human beings.

I'm going to post screen shots from a thread on Topix. If you've never been on Topix, rest assured that if you need to gather evidence showing just how psychotic Right Wing zealots can be, Topix is the place. It has everything from white supremacists to religious bigotry posted on behalf of some high profile Christian extremists.

Each of the following screen shots were taken from the same thread. The thread in question was about the Birther Bill being proposed in Louisiana, something I discussed in my last post. Judging by other commenters in the thread, it seems this same person has a reputation for posting death threats. Why is this person allowed to continue? Because we aren't doing anything about death threats directed at Barack Obama.







The thread is located here. By the time you read it, perhaps moderators will have already removed the objectionable posts.

If you want to see more of the same kinds of comments made by the same user, just do a simple search.
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atopix.com+_caes

Republicans position themselves to deny me the right to vote for Barack Obama

At this very moment, two Representatives in Louisiana are proposing a bill similar to what has been passed in Arizona pertaining to birth certificates and elections. In doing this, they create a situation where, if the officials cannot accept the documentation submitted to them by President Barack Obama, there is a good chance Louisiana will not let him on the ballot....And I will be unable to vote. Barack Obama has already shown a valid birth certificate, yet the crazy people aren't at all satisfied.

This is the new America envisioned by the Conservative gestapo. Birthers have taken over the Right Wing. Their paranoid delusions stretch so far that even Governor Bobby Jindal has said he will sign this bill should it make its way through Louisiana's legislative branch. Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill today. I hope Jindal realizes this will kill any national hopes he has for running for anything.

Where will this end? Who on the Conservative side will stand up to these nuts? When will Birthers lose their grip on the Republican Party?

Do we live in an era where my right to vote for the candidate I choose is denied because crazy people coerce our local elected officials?

Is this the new way to steal an election?

This is another sad day for America. Racism has reared its ugly head and none of us are doing anything about it. None of our leaders condemn it.

Louisiana residents should be ashamed. Republicans should be ashamed. Donald Trump should especially be ashamed for fanning the flame of hate.

Damn you for attempting to take away my ability to vote in the State of Louisiana. Damn you all.

Have we already lost?

The recent turn of events over the last few years has shown me as a voter that corporations control not only the politicians in DC, but our politicians at the local level.

When chunks come out of an airplane in the sky...
When oil spills devastate our shores...
When food contamination poisons our loved ones...
When fast food restaurants skimp on meat and replace it with filler to save money...

We must admit our problem is not with government, but with aging infrastructure that is run by businesses who refuse to change. Regulation has had its head cut off. We don't have the teeth to bite back. Companies hang their hats on risk management. They hire people to assess cost versus benefit risks and those rare events where bad things happen get shoved to the bottom of the list as a result. They hedge their bets at the expense of us, the American citizen.

We don't really have a choice. We live at the whim of corporate budgets. The effects of our complacency are nothing short of detrimental.

I'm not asking if we've lost the 2012 election to the Republicans. I am asking if we've lost the class struggle altogether. Are we already knee deep in Fascism? Are the economic powerhouses in this country in control of everything?

Whether or not Barack Obama will be re-elected will not be determined by a "referendum" on his performance. It will be a testament to the corporate influence the major players behind the scenes have over our election process. As the 2012 campaigns begin to enter our minds in the weeks to come, the misinformation will flood in, the hate we experienced in 2008 will resurface, and we as citizens will be turned against each other. The power at the top will stand over us, look down, and laugh.

You may be disappointed in our political system. You may be disappointed with Barack Obama. What I won't do is stand here and tell you that voting for a Republican will make things any better. At the beginning of 2011, the Republicans set the stage for their 2012 campaign. They are at war with the Middle Class, from union workers to Social Security recipients to our teachers, police, and firemen. Jobs were not on their list of priorities. They chose party over country again and if you are Republican, you should be troubled by this move, not enthusiastic about it. While you may be at war with Liberals and secularism, you need to wake up and realize that you are being attacked by something else, corporate greed. The urgency with which we must launch our counter-attack has never been clearer, so while you may dislike the idea of a second term for Barack Obama, what you do not want is your current spread of Conservative candidates to take a swing at the presidency. In 2016, you can vote for either party again, but a Republican win would send a message to the corporate world that it is open season on the rest of us.

Your choice is between Barack Obama and a Republican powerhouse cramming their flavor of Big Government down our throats (the fast track to Fascism). Any Conservative who tells you they are out to shrink the size of government is lying. On social issues, they want to dictate what we do. On safety issues, they want to dictate what it is we cannot have. On income, they have no desire to help any of us get a job. The past two years have been about power. The Republican Party is now about control. There is no incentive for them to side with the people. They are in this to crush the Democratic Party into oblivion.

So if you are a Republican voter who believes in democracy and the electoral process, do you want to live in a country where you don't have any rivals? Do you really want to live where your beliefs go unopposed? Do you believe in the balance of power?

This is where I wonder if we as Liberals have already lost. Over the past few years, I have been tossing the following idea around in my brain. Is America really more conservative than liberal? Are Liberals simply outnumbered? Are we dead in the putrid water? Do we survive only at the whim of ignorance, bigoted, and the misinformed?

When you look at who is funding Republicans and Democrats in recent elections, you might get the sense that we as Liberals are almost powerless. The only groups throwing big money behind are candidates appear to be unions. The rest? The big bucks come from big companies and the most of the money goes to Republicans.


When Republicans began chipping away at unions in recent months, the message being sent is that they are not attacking unions. They are attacking the Democratic Party. After all, isn't that what a modern day Republican is? Isn't that what defines modern Conservatism? The one thing they all have in common on that side of the political fence is an overt hatred of anything Left of Center.

"Imagine a world without Liberals."

That is the current under-the-table slogan for the Republican Party.

So have we already lost? Is the America where two political parties exist simply gone? The current climate is full of voters who feel neither Democrats nor Republicans are any good. In fact, many voters feel there is no real difference at all. I urge you to look at the attacks taking place on the financial viability of Liberal politics and ask yourself if there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans through those glasses. I say there is.

A recent poll published by NBC News found that the majority of Republicans want their elected officials to stand firm at the risk of a government shut down. Democrats almost overwhelmingly when asked the same question sided with compromise. Independent voters overwhelmingly sided with compromise when asked about both Republicans and Democrats.

Who is the real threat here? Stalwarts or Hopefuls?

If you don't vote, but can...
If you won't vote, but could...
If you swing vote, and see...

Send a message in 2012 that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not welcome in this climate. Bring us back into focus as a nation. Vote in protest against this machine, even if your politics align you to the Right, fiscally. I welcome Libertarians into my ranks, but I turn my nose at the Social Conservatives that are running us into the ground.

When, in the same NBC News poll, people were asked if this country is on the right track, most said No. Which track are they looking at? It depends on which train you're on. If you sit on the Left, you see a political system in disarray, torn apart by a Right Wing lunatic fringe. If you sit on the Right, you see Barack Obama, Democrats, and Liberalism as a plague.

When posed like that, we have all lost, and once again, I am ashamed to be an American.

Huckabee vs Obama/Muslim Myth

For most Republicans, the Colbert Report is not on their radar. They probably lump him in with Stewart and all that is the scary Liberal media. Unfortunately, Republicans do come on the show, so it would benefit them to hear what has to be said, whether through ridicule, truth, or both.

During the interview, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee was asked about the poll that showed Republicans split on whether or not they thought Barack Obama was a Muslim. The poll from last year said that 46 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim.

To this, Huckabee had several outstanding answers.

1. "I do not believe that."
2. "I just think they have come to a conclusion that is not based on fact" in reference to that 46 percent of Republican voters.
3. "He has articulated repeatedly that he is a Christian."
4. Not only does Huckabee believe that Obama is a Christian, but the said that he also thinks it is irrelevant, even if he were Muslim.

So for all you Republicans out there who are Huckabee supporters AND believe Obama is a Muslim, you have some serious soul searching to do.

Stop Calling Independents "Moderate"

Moments ago, David Gregory on Meet The Press asked a question of the panel, reflecting back on the 2010 midterm election. He phrased it in terms of the moderate voter moving away from President Obama and more to the Right. There's just one thing wrong with that comment. Referring to Independents as Moderates is no longer a legitimate perspective. The political spectrum has changed and our media talking heads have yet to make the adjustment.

I wrote a post about this a long time ago, yet no one seems to be catching on.
See A New Trend: Being an "Independent" Voter

Visit any Conservative web site where a forum is in place. Ask the Conservatives if they identify themselves as Republicans or Conservatives. Ask them!!!

Their answer will be the following.

They no longer associate themselves with the Republican party. They are Independents. THAT'S RIGHT. Those Conservatives are now calling themselves Independents. Conservatives who do not align themselves with the Republican party are not moderate Conservatives. They are fringe Conservatives. They believe in far Right policies. They will never support a Democratic agenda, let alone a moderate agenda. When news organizations conduct their polls and end the questionnaire by asking if participants identify themselves as a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent, do you see now how these polls can suddenly make it seem as though the general public is against what Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing? The terminology needs to change. An Independent and a Moderate voter are not one and the same.

Leading up to the 2008 presidential election, we saw this trend. After Barack Obama won, we continued to see this split on the Conservative side of the fence. Our news outlets have not fully recognized the trend. They are asleep at the wheel. This sort of trend has existed on the Left for some time now. Only until recently has the "Independent" voice on the Right gained any traction.

So...will someone in the media shake some screws loose and stop referring to Independents as people who vote from the middle? It's misleading. Even top Conservatives in Washington, from Mitch McConnell to John Boehner have used this "statistic" to spin politics in their favor, claiming middle America is on their side when in fact, this is not the case.

America, where we do not learn from our mistakes.

Part of the problem I have with the Left-leaning main stream media is the disconnect it has with the goings-on among the real Right-wing electorate. When pundits sit at their desks discussing the power struggles going on in this country right now, they direct most of their focus at the elected officials who wear an R on their sleeve. The Left-leaning media does not hone in on their supporters. These pundits put things in context of an America which does not want to dive back into the ditch of the Bush years. A vote to the Right in the mid-term elections most likely will send us back into the old habits which got us into our present predicament to begin with.

The notion that we know where the mistakes were made cannot be any clearer. Those of us in the Center and on the Left seem to find solace in that ever popular quote, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's a good soundbyte. It does make sense. The problem is, the real world doesn't think that way, especially if the eyes looking out on the world are firmly planted in the head of someone Right-leaning. There is an alternate universe with a skewed version of reality chomping at the bit, hungry for control of this country.

Pundits need to take a vacation. They need to spend some time living in disguise among the entrenched Right wing zealots. Shreveport is just such a place, as is East Texas. I say, pack your bags and come on over here. You'll be shocked at what you learn after only a day or two among these southerners.

They do want the Bush years back and it has nothing to do with paying attention to the mistakes of the past. The mistakes are forgivable in their mind. Why? Because it fed into their paranoia. They could sleep at night knowing there was someone in the White House who wanted to kick some ass and who wouldn't let some Liberal pantywaist bring homosexuals into their churches and blacks into their neighborhoods. For them, our strength lies in our military, not our populace or our resilience. W gave them the out of sight, out of mind comfort. On top of all of that, the angst right now is deeply associated with the loss of an election, stirring up emotions only seen when two college football teams face off in the Southeastern Conference. They don't have the cajones to stand up against the corporate corruption and greed ruining our communities. They would rather have a job that kills them from the inside out than a government who fights for them to make the workplace safer and holds big business accountable for their misgivings. Our Left-leaning media does not know this group of people all that well. Unfortunately, I'm living among these kinds of people, distraught at the notion that I am living in some sort of personal Hell. We need to stomp these people out and shout them down the same way they go about handling us. The fight is on and we need to step up our efforts.

So while it might sound nice to be optimistic about the Democratic agenda and our success in previous elections, it has no bearing on what this country really wants, even if they want to drive us into a wall. It's a wishy washy way of thinking. The gloves need to come off. Barack Obama said it best in his speech the other day when he endorsed Harry Reid.

"We know how the movie ends when the other party is in charge. You don't have to guess how they'll govern, because we're still living with the damage from the last time they were governing...and they are still singing from the same hymnal. They haven't changed. They want to do the same stuff."

Unfortunately, Barack Obama still has faith in the American people. I do not. He thinks that Americans know that the policies of the previous administration will be remembered. He needs to recognize that the dialogue has been hijacked by the Tea Party and the spin has already begun on history barely even old enough to grow mold yet.

But even his quote targets elected officials and not the electorate. Don't get distracted, folks. We are up against more than a few idiots advocating chickens in exchange for health care and making lemonade out of children born out of incest. Their followers spew the same crap. We are up against the threat of idiocracy.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

And repeat we shall.

Again and again.

Until we learn our lesson.

Or until we poison ourselves and our planet in the name of our own selfish interests.

But by then, it's probably going to be too late.

I wish I had more to say

I really wish I had more to say about the current political landscape, but with every new story comes the same tired Republican banter I've already written about. There really isn't anything for me to add. I could sit here and discuss the Kagan confirmation hearings, immigration laws, the oil spill, or even health care for that matter, but I'd keep coming back to the same point.

What point?

Republican talking points and blind followers of the fringe conservative bowel movement are front and center every day.

I'd like to be able to say I'm optimistic about our future here in America, but I am not. In fact, I feel much the same way I felt the day George W. Bush won, or rather, the day Al Gore conceded. That prediction I made about hard times ahead of us still seems to be coming true and although Barack Obama is honestly trying to dig us out, the same people who had terrified faces the night McCain lost are trying to derail everything to send us back into the tailspin we were in prior to the '08 election.

With the new Supreme Court ruling regarding firearms, I'm even more unhappy with the way this country is heading. I'm frankly scared, especially since I'm surrounded by southerners. I'm afraid we are on the brink of something very bad and very violent.

While all these things are going on behind the scenes, the ditto heads are front and center, spewing rhetoric and playing the politics game. There is no real threat of anti-incumbency. When folks like Boehner, McConnell, Graham, Vitter, and all the rest lose their cushy seats in Congress, then I'll tip my hat to the conservative anti-incumbency trend. Until then, I refuse to believe conservatives are angry enough at our elected officials to create any kind of legitimate and worthwhile positive change. They'd much rather criticize Democrats and point fingers at corruption within the Democratic party than to question members in their own ranks. Everything comes back to Obama, and in some instances, Bill Clinton. This has never been about fixing Washington. It has always been a game of winners and losers.

So when you're celebrating the 4th this week end, know that there are many other Americans ashamed of what this country has become as a direct result of the fringe conservative hijacking of our political system. We were ashamed in 2001. We had an ounce of hope in 2008 into 2009. Now we're just apathetic about moving forward because so many on the Right want to hold us back. I really wish I had more to say, but to be honest, I'm flat out terrified of anyone who claims to be conservative. They live in a completely separate reality than the rest of us, a reality that is out of touch with the real sweat and blood Americans who are in worse shape than the Tea Party crybabies.

Idiocracy, here we come.

Poor Yahoo/AP News Journalism Stirs The Pot

With rising costs of running government programs, certain decisions will be necessary. Some programs will face cuts. Others will be deemed wasteful and cut altogether. The fact remains that in order for Americans to continue to enjoy services offered at the federal level and to remain a major military power in the world, we are going to have to find money somewhere. We also owe a few countries some money. No bones about it. We need to figure this out.

But what has Yahoo News thrown into the mix? Fear over a VAT, a value-added-tax. In simplest terms, that's a value based form of tax where an expense gets tacked on to a product which represents its journey from creation to market. Not many like the idea of a VAT, but that's not the point of my post, at least not directly.

What Yahoo News has done is write an article with a daunting headline striking fear into the minds of taxpayers, specifically wingnuts, and stirring the pot of anti-Obama sentiment a little more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100422/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_tax

What the article mentions, yet fails to responsibly convey, is that President Obama is not actually considering, nor his he proposing, a VAT. As expressed by the Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, a VAT “is not something the President has proposed nor is it under consideration.”

Can't get much clearer than that. The only people who should predictably fall for such an article already feel Obama is a liar. The truth could hit them in the nose and Obama would still be a liar.

But wait, there's more.

Like another recent debacle over a fishing ban spawned from one editorial piece on ESPN which got the wingnuts all riled up, the dubious VAT proposal is only being purported by Yahoo News. Anyone linking to a story about a VAT coming from the Obama administration leads directly back to the same Yahoo News Article. Read the article for yourself and follow along carefully. The headline asserts that Obama is considering a VAT, yet at every turn in the article, the message being sent in response is that a VAT is not being considered. What Obama did say is that many options are on the table. Perhaps he misspoke slightly, making himself appear as though in fiscal matters, he is remaining open minded. Blame poor question/answer prep.

Take the research one step further. Michele Bachmann tried to spin this VAT notion the other day when she went up against Chris Wallace. He called her on it, plainly stating that a VAT is not being proposed. Paul Volcker might have suggested that we as a country might have to consider it to pay our way out of the hole we've been left in, but that's as far as the idea goes. We all know Bachmann is nuts anyway.
http://factcheck.org/2010/04/sunday-slips/

Come on now people, crack some heads over this. Call me when Congress has moved beyond committee proposing an all out VAT. Otherwise, spare me the tin foil hat diatribes. The Senate just went 85-13 against the idea of having a VAT.

What These Poll Results Really Represent

Three polls being tossed around in the news have been twisted to fit more partisan views without anyone even considering the views that are realistically represented by those polls.

The first two are Obama's approval rating and the "Obamacare" approval rating. At face value, these numbers show Obama might be struggling a little bit. Republicans are rolling in it painting the American public as being against Obama's policies.

That's not quite right. Let's take a look at why people might disapprove of Obama's policies, specifically with regard to the health care debate.

It should be painfully obvious that anyone on the Right opposes Obama's policies and the Health Care reform going through Congress because it's Obama. They think it's all socialism. Yes? Good. We have that chunk of people accounted for.

But surely pollsters asked more than just right wingers? Of course they did!

Let's move our way left across the spectrum.

Why would people in the middle be iffy on Obama? They're just uneasy, caught up between the fear mongering and the economic crisis. Some believe the "socialism" hype. Others are simply fiscally concerned about debt.

Why would people on the left be iffy on Obama?

Progressives want Obama to be more to the left than he really is. Despite what the Right is trying to say, Obama is not some far left politician. If he were, his numbers would be better from those on the far left. Let's face it. Progressives wanted Single Payer, not the Public Option. They aren't happy with that idea. They also aren't happy that Obama isn't fighting more to get the legislation through Congress by strong arming Dems who are being problematic.

That settles the first two polls. What about the second?

Congress does not have a good approval rating either. The House and Senate have not had a good reputation for a long time though. Americans are increasingly frustrated with our elected officials. They can't get anything done because they cannot agree on anything.

In the current situation, it would appear that the group who can't agree on anything is on the Republican side of the fence. In addition, "conservative" Democrats are becoming obstructionists as well. Nothing gets done when so many members of Congress vote "No."

But the numbers are being twisted to make it look as though Democrats will have a major loss in 2010 elections. That implies Republicans will be filling those slots, doesn't it? Republican leaders want to play this out to work in their favor. Somehow because the Democrats have the slim majority, Republicans want all the blame to fall on that watch and not their own...as if they had nothing to do with legislation failing.

Electing more Republicans will just result in less compromise and fewer opportunities for Obama's administration to get anything done. Of course, in the minds of Republicans, that's a good thing. After all, doing something would equate to big government. God forbid they actually do their jobs. We're going to end up with the same problem we had under Clinton. We won't be able to get anything done because the system of checks and balances will simply end up at the whim of stingy old white men from southern states. Don't re-elect Blue Dog Democrats either because they aren't really Democrats to begin with.

The approval rating for Congress is a reflection of this inability to overcome partisan bickering. The Democrats are showing they want to work. The Republicans are showing they can only vote "No." Doing nothing is not an option. Vote with this in mind or expect to get elected officials who are a mirror image of our own stagnant hatred for one another. Want them to get something done? Send people who want to work to get something passed.

Thoughts On Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial

The infamous terror plot which lead to the horrific events of 9/11 will finally face justice after years of sitting in limbo. The debate as to whether or not Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a federal court or a military tribunal is an interesting one. I can see reasons for supporting either method. It's a strange feeling I'm having, but for once, I'm actually agreeing with what some Republicans have to say. Certainly not everything they're saying appeals to me. I still think they're a bunch of cutthroat assholes.

In my opinion, the standard has been to try these kinds of cases in a military tribunal and not as a federal case. I am siding with those who prefer we try this terrorist via military tribunal. I'm not 100 percent on this idea. I do have questions. What makes this especially interesting is Khalid's status in this country. It's my understanding that he had visa status and went to school in North Carolina. In light of trials over home grown terrorism, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh for example, it's no stretch of the imagination to suggest that perhaps someone with visa status should be tried in federal court. To suggest otherwise reveals your arrogant inflexibility, a behavior I find unacceptable.

Many have said that to try this man in federal court serves as an example to the world of just how solid and fair our judicial system is. We are, after all, a nation of laws. By trying this man with standards equal to our own, we are saying to the world that we treat people as innocent until proven guilty. As Americans, we need to stand by that belief or lose everything that makes us who we are. We can't be the symbol of democracy for other nations when we treat people from those nations in a less than democratic fashion.

However, would it really matter?

We could try him in federal court. We could try him in a military tribunal. In either case, it appears he will be convicted. To the radical Muslim world, no matter which way we go, we will still be viewed as the infidel out to rid the world of Muslims. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. No matter how fair of a trial this guy gets, in the minds of Islamic extremists, Americans are incapable of being fair. Putting this man to death will irritate an already volatile group of folks. Imprisoning him will produce a similar reaction. It doesn't matter what we do. So we have to ask what we want. We have to ask what the world wants. After all, the attack on the World Trade Center killed people from countries other than our own. Shouldn't they have a voice in this?

In many respects, Republicans are no different than the extremists. Had Obama sent this guy to a military tribunal, it still wouldn't have been enough for Republicans. They'd still find something to bitch about. Why should we appease a bunch of assholes? We shouldn't.

International law is a funny thing. Perhaps we could hand the case over to the United Nations. Of course, in doing so, Democrats would face anger and severe criticism from Republicans because, if I'm not mistaken, those silly Republicans don't give two shits about the UN. Another interesting point to make in international terms is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a solider. He is not an enemy combatant fighting under the command of any one nation. He is a terrorist and in legal terms, that's something different. They have no place in a military tribunal. To blatantly disregard this definition is to appeal to an irrational paranoia and the growing trend of intentional misinformation.

One could also argue that by bringing these individuals to New York, the city will have its chance to seek revenge for what was done. It could be our way of symbolically allowing New York some additional closure. I suspect Texans would feel the same way. Nothing screams Texas justice like getting your hands around the throat of the bastard that attacked your home city. If Texans like it, chances are, it's the Republican way too. Revenge is always their prerogative.

Whatever we end up doing, we ought to push for a little solidarity. Instead, I fear we will continue down this divisive path. Republicans would rather divide us than say anything worth listening to. While I may agree with their opinion that we should try this case in a military tribunal, these jerks have been taking it one step further by trying to evoke fear from the American public.

Crazy Talk From The Right: Indoctrination

Over the last eight years, subjects like prayer in school and intelligent design have been pushed into the education curriculum by right wing zealots, but when Barack Obama wants to give a 20 minute speech to our nation's youth, the same folks throw a temper tantrum.

This must mean one kind of indoctrination must be better than another. But that's only if you indulge the paranoia that Obama's speech is some form of indoctrination. It only rings true if the speech itself was somehow political. Even in its original form prior to the edits, the speech was not political. Asking to help is not partisan unless you twist it into something with your own corrupt paranoia.

But let's be serious about this for a moment. It has nothing to do with the content of the speech. The speech is a straw man. Has nothing to do with the root of the problem.

Even prior to day one of this administration, the right wing nuts out there had their minds made up. Doesn't matter what Obama does. Whatever it is, they don't trust it. Whatever he says, they don't like it. Doesn't matter if it's good for our country. It came from a liberal, so it must be bad, even if it's good.

Indoctrination...not a new talking point.

Of all the paranoid comments I read and hear from the nuts on the right, indoctrination is up in the top five. The entire education system to these nuts is just one giant liberal brainwashing machine. It's really one gigantic paranoid delusion. Liberal media. Liberal schools. Liberals, liberals, liberals. So what if a few professors have more liberal curriculums? I can name some local profs in political science and economics who run their own conservative slanted web sites. Guilty as charged? The beauty of a solid education is how it provides the critical thinking skills which allow us to make up our own minds in the face of conflicting information.

Can't go to college. Those damn college professors are gonna fill your mind full of liberal nonsense.

Where will you end up without a college education? A high school diploma is not enough anymore. In order to compete in the job market, you've got to acquire an advanced degree.

The alternative:
This is how we become the United States of Stupid. Want an entire country convinced that they don't need schooling? Want an entire country that doesn't believe in science? Want to fall behind every other country with regards to technology? That'd do it.

If this speech is part of the liberal indoctrination, flourishing stupidity is the GOP equivalent.

Reminds me of Kathy Bates in The Waterboy. Everything is the work of the Devil. No book learnin' for her boy. Well folks, that character was nuts.

What are you going to do without a college education? Do you want to get a good high paying job? Well then, get yourself an education or expect to have a job with your name on your shirt.

Don't believe me? Then why, as a parent, would you deny your child an entire day of learning just because of a 20 minute speech? Keeping your kid home from school is simply not a good decision as a parent. It sends the wrong message. In fact, it sends the exact opposite message the President will convey in his speech. Poor kids.

Want another example of GOP indoctrination? Read my post on how the local airport plays the National Anthem multiple times a day. Blind patriotism anyone? Want a real Hitler Youth comparison? That's the ticket. Anyone remember how the Jews were portrayed? Disreputable. Evil. Jews were supposed to be ruining the Aryan way of life via the press and intellectual influence, among numerous other things. Liberals have become the new Jew. For years, liberals were called fascists. When confronted with the accusation, we countered with historical facts comparing fascist policies to Bush policy, not Clinton policy. Now that Bush is gone, it seems all the right wingers can come up with is to spin the fascism card back in the other direction one more time. Do they plan on exterminating liberals? From the rhetoric we've already heard, that's not much of a stretch for some leading right wing voices.

Chew on that for a while. Then decide who should be more paranoid.