2/26/08

Does John McCain Support the Troops?

clammyc at ePluribusMedia thinks McCain has a clear track record of dumping on the troops:

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the “Double Talk Express”. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

Go check out just how John McCain is no friend of the soldiers... It is truly disgusting how McCain has turned his back on the troops time and time again.

Here is just a taste of what clammyc is talking about:
April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.
The vote to table it by the Republican controlled Senate basically broke down by party line (52-47) and effectively killed it... McCain and the Republicans do not give a damn about the soldiers, especially considering their promise of endless war. To this day the National Guard and Reserves are still short on beans, bullets and other supplies.

Suicides in the U.S. Army increased 20 percent in 2007 from the previous year; that word came today in reports on internal Army documents. They showed as many as 121 suicides in the ranks in 2007. More than a quarter of those -- about 34 -- happened in Iraq. Army officials have said the troops are under increased stress, partly due to long overseas deployments.

An independent commission warned today the National Guard is even less combat-ready than it was a year ago. The commission on the National Guard and Reserves reported to Congress. It said the two forces do not have the equipment or training they need.

All thanks to the way John McCain and other Republicans treat the troops... Republicans kill anything in congress that tries to force bush to honestly support the troops. ABC's Political Punch knocks out the highly partisan far right wingnuts that screeched over Obama's statements in the debate the other night:

Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.


Meanwhile, John McCain has made clear his support for bush's continued failed policies. I have asked this question over and over again:

Do you really support the troops?

Do you even know what kind of support they really need?

Apparently Barrack Obama does know what the troops really need, according General Casey's assessment of the truth behind what the right wingnuts were screeching about after the debate:

Today Gen. George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee with a very different take on the story. From the AP ...

Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons.

But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Casey said the incident would have occurred in 2003 and 2004 following the Iraq invasion. He said he remembers it as a "difficult time" trying to rush armor and other equipment to the troops.

He didn't endorse what Obama said, which there's no need for him to do. And he was frank about the supply difficulties that were widely reported at the time and which few people who follow these matters question. But mostly, if the AP report is an accurate guide, Casey sought to answer the question to the extent possible without engaging the politics of it.

This is not some partisan nit to pick. The Bush administration has had a dangerous and corrosive tendency to partisanize the Pentagon and use it to game domestic political controversies and campaigns.
According to General Casey the situation is still getting worse for the military:
"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future."

John McCain can take his partisan campaign and incompetent support of bush failure and go sit in the right wingnut corner and rotate on it. America has no more room for continued GOP failures.

Chris Dodd Definitely Endorsing Obama

From My Email inbox and confirming Scarce's diary concerning rumors of an impending endorsement of Barack Obama by Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd:
Dear Stephen,

We have been through a lot in this past year and your friendship and support have meant so much to me. That is why I wanted to let you know of my decision to endorse a Democratic candidate for President - and that I have decided to support Barack Obama.

We all understand how much is at stake in this election and that it is more important than ever that we put a Democrat in the White House.

And while both of our Party's remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.

I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.

Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.

That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.

The last seven years have been as difficult as any I can remember. More than ever, we need a President who will inspire us to take part in the political process and change our country's path.

Today, when we need it most, we are hearing a new call from Barack Obama. And I hope you, like me, will answer it in the affirmative.

Please get involved in Barack Obama's campaign now: http://action.barackobama.com/doddsupporters


Sincerely,

Chris Dodd

2/25/08

Right Wingnut Frenzy Over Soldier's Assertions

Right wingnuts were hysterical over this story:

In last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was told by an Army captain that his platoon’s resources in Afghanistan were shortchanged because of the Iraq war. Seeking to turn Obama’s remarks into a political attack, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) immediately questioned the authenticity of the statement. But ABC News contacted the Army captain, who backed up Obama’s story. And now the New York Times reports that soldiers in Afghanistan are still strapped for resources:

And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

Jon Soltz and VetVoice have more.
Crooks and Liars has more on this as well:

During the Austin debate last week, Barack Obama made this comment:

“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

Well, you had to know that a statement like that–insinuating that life is not all wine and roses for our troops being sent for their third, fourth and fifth rotation into the Gulf–was just going to make the wingnuts crazy. (I won’t link them, but you’ll find links here)

ABC's Political Punch knocks out the highly partisan far right wingnuts that screeched over Obama's statements:

Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.

I have asked this question over and over again:

Do you really support the troops?

Do you even know what kind of support they really need? I could tell you but you politically partisan right wingnuts will not like the answers. You never did like the truth...

2/24/08

Add brought to you by Republicans For Fear!

"Republicans for Fear!" are also known as your local and national GOP candidates and politicians - like Chris Shays, Joe Lieberman and John McCain - that have lost their frickin' minds:



Please feel free to crap your pants in fear as the GOP tries to scare you into giving up what little freedom you have left in order to protect the bush legacy of illegally spying on Americans from being fully investigated.

Or you could be more logical and patriotic by impeaching bush to protect The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

It all depends on whether you put bush, the GOP and partisan politics above The Constitution, OR if you put country over partisan politics.

Take your pick and make your stand so we know who and what you are...

I think I may need a bigger bra?


Because, somehow, my Blog has managed to grow to a "double E"? I had noticed this post over at Moue Magazine, by Brandy, and was planning on writing about this:
This post is brought to you by the letter "E"
Maryanne of the excellent blog Maryannaville bestowed upon us the Excellent Blog Award. Award rules stipulate that recipients must pay it forward to ten other worthy bloggers. Here are my choices for the Excellent Blog Awards. Acceptance speeches are welcome, but not mandatory, and we reserve the right to cue the orchestra if you ramble for too long.

ROTUS, Cangrejero of The Midpoint, The Political Cat, Monkeyfister, Stephen from Drinking Liberally…, Flea of One Good Thing , The honorable Mr. Jon Swift , Shaun of Kiko’s House , The Station Agent of Ice Station Tango (who is having technical difficulties), And… Skippy B. Roo . Congrats, everyone and we’ll meet you at the open bar.

Surprisingly, skippy also nominated me for this... Leaving me feeling twice as humbled as Blue Girl, Red State:
It is with humble gratitude we accept this award, bestowed upon us by one of our original tour guides through the wilds of blogtopia (and yes, he did indeed coin that phrase)...Skippy! Skippy was tapped by the lovely Brandy at moue magazine, in addition to us, he also tapped some fine blogging talent (and poached some of our obvious choices) when he also reached out and touched:

zaius nation, zen comix, whiskey fire, vidiot speak vagabond scolar, mike, the mad biologist, the galloping beaver, echidne of the snakes, drinking liberally in new milford, the culture ghost, correntewire, cookies in heaven, cannablog, blue gal, and badtux, the snarky penguin.
Much like skippy, "we are just honored to be nominated..." Well, in my case "I am honored" since this is not a group Blog and I am not a doctor, nurse nor royalty. And doubly so, NOT just because two Bloggers singled me out but because of the quality of the other Blogs that are listed up there. There are a lot of great Blogs in Blogtopia (y!sct). Many of them are huge compared to this little corner of it, and some of them are relatively new and just developing a readership community. But they are all great in their own way.

So... Here I go before the kegs up there run out or the beer gets flat:

Hat City BLOG

Connecticut Bob

Spazeboy

Ravings of a Semi-Sane Madwoman

1%moreconcious

Cool Justice

Man Eegee

The Life and Times of a Carolina Parrothead

The Crone Speaks

The Strange Death of Liberal America

And yes! I am going over ten since I got it twice, and since this is about sharing some of your favorite places. Trust me... I could easily add 20 more with all of the Blogs I read.

The Liberal Journal

Alien Trucker

PSOTD

Howard Empowered

House of the Rising Sons

The Field Negro

ThePoliticalCat

Mock Paper Scissors

Identity Check

My View of "It"

As I said, I could easily add another 20 Blogs and still have left some very worthy places out but it is my hope that some of the Blogs I chose will, by sheer luck, pick them out... And all of those Blogs are not necessarily in any particular order. They truly are all great in their own way!

2/23/08

Republicans and Bush Screwed The McCain Pooch

Via TPM Muckraker, and most worthy of a laugh considering Republican stonewalling and filiblustering since they lost Congress:

We noted this yesterday. But The Washington Post does a good job today in sizing up the situation and its possible mammoth consequences for McCain's campaign.

There are really two completely separate issues here.

First, McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year. It meant that his struggling campaign would get $5.8 million in public matching funds in March. Now that he's effectively the Republican nominee, he wants out, because the system entails a spending limit of $54 million through the end of August. He's almost spent that much already, according to the Post.

So the McCain campaign sent the Federal Election Commission a letter (pdf) earlier this month saying that he was opting out. But there's a problem. And FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, made it plain in his letter (pdf) yesterday: McCain can't tell the FEC that he's out of the system. He can only ask.

And the FEC, which normally has six commissioners, can't give him an answer until it has a quorum of four commissioners. It currently only has two. That's because the Senate has been deadlocked over four nominees; Democrats insist on a separate confirmation vote for vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky, and Republicans insist on a single vote for all nominees.

The Double Talk Express is oh so out of gas having already vaporized his entire campaign stash.

Now... You my be wondering if this is really that serious an issue?
"Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."
As a side note, and back on the lobbying/adultery stories, Hoffmania seems to think that the NY Times article about McCain's alleged affairs may be a plant:
I was kinda liking the theory that McCain himself planted the story to offset the age issue and show that he's a spry little sex poodle.

Stranger theorizes that's not far off the mark (although the motivation is quite different).

You have to look at the timing of this whole thing. By letting the legal teams hash out the release of the story for three months before acquiescing to its publication, we see the release of the story just as McCain seems poised to take the GOP monination - but still pretty far out from Election Day. Given that many TV pundits have already decided that this story will only hang around for a couple of days, all McCain needs to do is deny, deny, deny until it dies down, and presto! - he's innoculated! Any revisiting of the story between now and November - whether or not there are new revelations - will be written off by the McCain campaign as 'old news.'

But it doesn't stop there - not by a shot. Over at Politico, McCain advisor Charlie Black lets slip that after negotiating with the Times over the story for months, now they're going to cash in on it.

That's one of what we're sure is going to be hundreds of theories surrounding the timing and reason for this story. With this one, we share Stranger's intrigue of how the NY Times has vetted it with their people as well as McCain's.

The problem for McCain on that kind of gamble is that the lobbying stories are what stood out for most of the media and the Blogosphere... They are digging like crazy on the McCain lobbyists and they have already hit paydirt. This time, McCain only appears to have screwed himself if the story was a plant.

I wonder if these peace songs will get played on the radio?

Via Think Progress:
“Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Pearl Jam have contributed tunes to the anti-war soundtrack for a documentary about a U.S. soldier paralyzed in Iraq. The 30-song, two-disc album ‘Body of War: Songs That Inspired an Iraq War Veteran’ will be released March 18 via Warner Music’s Sire Records label. All proceeds from the sale of the album will benefit Iraq Veterans Against the War.”
Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder is behind the effort to support Iraq Veterans Against the War and the album will include songs like "No war" - "Masters of War" - "Devils & Dust" - The Restless Consumer" - "Yo George" - "Son of a Bush" - "Bushonomics" - and a bunch of other inspiring tunes.

A little bit on who and what makes up the Iraq Veterans Against the War taken from their "about" page:

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.

From its inception, IVAW has called for:

  • Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
  • Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
  • Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

Our membership includes recent veterans and active duty servicemen and women from all branches of military service, National Guard members, and reservists who have served in the United States military since September 11, 2001.

IVAW’s strategy is to mobilize the military community to withdraw its support for the war and occupation in Iraq. Therefore, IVAW is leading the movement of veterans and GIs who are working to bring the troops home now.

Today, IVAW members are in 48 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and on numerous bases overseas, including Iraq. IVAW has chapters around the country and in Canada. IVAW members educate the public about the realities of the Iraq war by speaking in communities and to the media about their experiences. Members also dialogue with youth in classrooms about the realities of military service. IVAW supports all those resisting the war, including Conscientious Objectors and others facing military prosecution for their refusal to fight. IVAW advocates for full funding for the Veterans Administration, and full quality health treatment (including mental health) and benefits for veterans when they return from duty.

To learn more about IVAW's strategy to end the war and bring the troops home now, you can download our strategy pamphlet in PDF format here.

I am a veteran for peace and wholeheartedly support their efforts. I also look forward to every informational Newsletter I get from them in my Email inbox.

Lobbying for the Truth Behind the McCain Affairs

The truth that the GOP is trying to avoid discussing... Has nothing to do with the fact that McCain cheated repeatedly on his first wife, finally leaving her when he found a suitable stepping stone spouse for his political career. I could deal with The Real McCain's family values disgraces but I'll leave that to the ostriches in the conservative echo chamber to choke on:
According to Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief, February 1, 2008, "[John McCain] used nepotism to get ahead: When he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider." Skousen also notes that "McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress."

It has also never been explained why the son and grandson of Navy admirals would not rise to the rank of Admiral himself. (He exited the Navy as a Captain.) Was it his numerous adulterous affairs or his violent temper? Or both?

John McCain's biographer Robert Timberg chronicles McCain's numerous sexual affairs with subordinates both when he was an Executive Officer and later Squadron Commander. Obviously, such fraternization is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
They can torture themselves over McCain's hypocrisy on that issue while burying their heads in the sand from the real issue raised in the recent NY Times article. Glen Greenwald gets straight to the heart of the very real McCain issue, the issue that the GOP is avoiding like a neoconservative plague:

In issuing a very specific, point-by-point denial of the NYT story, McCain specifically denied that he ever talked to Paxson's CEO, Lowell Paxson (or any other Paxson representative) about this matter:

No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding. . . . No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding.
Au contraire, my fuzzy, feathery pet neocons:
But Newsweek's Mike Isikoff today obtained (or was given) the transcripts of deposition testimony which McCain himself gave under oath several years ago in litigation over the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. In that testimony, McCain repeatedly and unequivocally stated the opposite of what he said in this week's NYT denial: namely, that he had unquestionably spoken with Paxson himself over the pending FCC matter:
"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue -- an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named -- "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]."

It's hard to imagine how there could be a clearer contradiction in McCain's statements than (a) "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]" and (b) "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding."
I'll let the GOP cry over whether or not he cheated on his second wife, the lobbying mistress he left his first wife for after repeatedly cheating on her, and whether or not he married her for her money and used her to further his career ambitions... Most of the left could care less about McCain's spousal issues. It is a minor issue, and trivial to a certain degree. It is all just a shield for the right to try deflect from and avoid the lobbying allegations. Never mind the hypocrisy concerning other lobbying aspects of his dubious campaign:
Set aside the issue of the nature of his relationship with Iseman, and you have the undeniable conflict of McCain, the chest-beating reformer, being so undeniably close to lobbyists. That, many have pointed out, is the real story. The man who's absurdly proclaimed that "I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to" is surrounded by lobbyists.

And The Washington Post, a day after it ran its own Iseman story on page one, goes with that story on today's front page under the concise headline, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists."

I'm not playing into John McCain's supporters hands and deflecting from the real issues of lying about unethical lobbyist connections because...




I'm Not Your Stepping Stone!


Certainly not when all John McCain has to offer is less jobs, and MORE WAR!

[update] Via MSNBC, McCain says he won't discuss his Lobbyist weaknesses any further:
"I don't have any more comment about this issue. I had a press conference yesterday morning, and I answered every question," McCain said.

"I'm moving on. I'm talking about the issues and the challenges of America and the big issues that Americans are concerned about. I addressed the issue and addressed every question that was addressed to me.

"I do not intend to discuss it further," he told reporters.
After omitting the fact that he lied at that press conference yesterday, McCain then goes on to exactly what he said he wouldn't do: Discuss it further:
"I square it one way," McCain said. "The right to represent interests or groups of Americans is a constitutional right. There are people that represent firemen, civil servants, retirees, and those people are legitimate representatives of a variety of interests in America.
WOOOHOOO! The old "Constitutionally protected" argument from a candidate that regularly ignores and tramples on The Constitution when it comes to your rights and mine. When McCain says he isn't going to talk about it anymore... He is really just praying that we will stop asking and digging on it. Good luck on that one!

[update deux] Crooks and Liars chronicles some of the lies from McCain:

So much for the Straight talk express. He’s been trying to spin the influence that Ms. Iseman had on him overall and specifically regarding the Paxson deal. McCain’s camp had this to say:

Statements from McCain’s office said Iseman met only with staff and indicated that a staff member was involved in drafting and sending the letter. Thursday’s statement went to lengths to say why McCain could not have met with Paxson.

There’s a slight problem with that. Bud Paxson basically called McCain a liar.

Broadcaster Lowell “Bud” Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson’s behalf.

Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.

And what about Vicki Iseman, you know, the lobbyist that McCain called a “friend?”

Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain’s office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. “Was Vicki there? Probably,” Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday. “The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.”


Oh yes! There's still more more lies and inconsistencies from McCain...

[update trois] Denis Horgan sums up the inconsistancies of McCain on the lobbyists well:
Snow is sunshine. The moon is Mars. What’s the difference? How is the truth relevant?

Oh, yes. We need four more years of this.

2/21/08

Bill O'Reilly on Lynching Michelle Obama

Via Crooks and Liars, where they have the video up:

Keith Olbermann brings on Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the horrific history behind Bill O’Reilly’s casual and callous use of the phrase “lynching party” in reference to Michelle Obama’s quote about being really proud of this country and the implications one may draw from it.

You know what lynching was? Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crow south. It wasn’t…the idea of course, wasn’t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people…not a few, by lynching some black people to demonstrate to other African Americans that this could happen to you, that you have no power, that we have all the power, and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life. There’s nothing funny about lynching. There’s certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama. And the word “unless” followed by “we’ll track it down,” is way beyond the pale.


I have written on this subject before, and I agree with Eugene Robinson on this topic, but I also think that it goes beyond just the racial issues:
Is Racism on the Rise in the USA?

I am sadly leaning towards a "yes" considering the reports of things that are going on locally in Connecticut and, via Man Eegee, around the rest of the country:
I'm sure race has nothing to with the recent surge of nooses in the news since we are soooo over bigotry in the U.S.
Police are looking for whoever dangled a 3-foot rope with a small loop at its end from a tree outside a campus cultural center that is home to several black organizations. The incident is being treated as a possible hate crime.

"This is bigger than a noose," Black Student Union President Altmann Pannell told his fellow students, many of whom were wearing "Terps as one" buttons."

"This is bigger than a noose because we as a community know that something else is going on in this country," Pannell said to murmurs of agreement.
linkage
That "something else" is not missed by minority communties, especially when the disparities in justice are blatantly tied to the color of one's skin.

For a year, Jena (pronounced JEEN-uh), a poor mining community of 3,000 people, has been embroiled in racial tensions pitting the black community against white school officials and a white prosecutor. It began last August when a black student asked at an assembly if black students could sit under a tree where white students usually sat. The next day, two nooses hung from the tree.

Black parents were outraged by the symbolism, recalling the mob lynchings of black men. They complained to school officials. District superintendent Roy Breithaupt and the school board gave three-day suspensions to the white students who hung the nooses, overruling the recommendation of then-principal Scott Windham that the students be expelled.

linkage

The case of the Jena Six has been covered extensively by fellow bloggers, such as Hello, Negro with information on how to donate to the defense fund; also My Right Mind! who offers a slew of tips to assist these young teens.

Nooses are more than just complex slip knots in a rope - they are both symbolic and directly representative of torture, murder and racist mob rule.

Man Eegee has some more bad news on this sad reality check...

But before you go there, I want you to think about this:
Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:

"Terror is nothing other than
prompt, severe, inflexible justice."



What are some of the possible reasons why racism seems to be on the rise in the Good Ol' USA? Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions and ideologies...

The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that

Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel:

"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."

Sheeple see... Sheeple do...
Or some terrorizing thought like that?

His statement makes Bill O'Reilly both racist and a homegrown terrorist, IMHO. The Jacobins used lynching to terrorize the people during the French revolution, and the neoconservatives/Jacobins do it today.

The prospect of even a symbolic press lynching party is a horrible and disgusting message for O'Reilly to send to Michelle Obama and it is meant to go to the entire African American community in the USA... But it is also part of the "Fear Campaign" meant for the consumption and terrorizing of all Americans and to spill over to the rest of the world.

To Chris Healy Fans... With Love

Marco had this to say in comments on my previous Chris Healy Post:
You know - your comments are really tasteless and really indicate what a senseless boor you are.

Shame on you.

Being critical of policy is one thing but making such nasty remarks is really unnecessary and very juvenile.
People lose all sense of humor and perspective when it is their child gone all wrong… So much so that lil’ marco pulled a michelle malkin and stalked me to my Blog to leave an infantile faux superiority complex message. One word for ya marco, and learn it well child:

Snark

But let’s assume you are right in calling me a juvenile, nasty, tasteless and senseless bore when Healy says this:

U.S. Rep. John B. Larson’s take on the Republican walkout Thursday at the U.S. House: “The political theater enacted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today was akin to Otter and Boone leading the Deltas out of the student body at Faber College.”

Republican State Chairman Chris Healy wasted no time with this retort: “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

There is a child, Healy in his own words and commenting on the childish walkout of republicans from doing THEIR JOBS (and it was nothing more than cheap political theatrics at that), begging for a very public spanking on his own “personal” issues…

Sorry, but you are 100% wrong in your name calling, marco. This is the reality of what Healy is. He is a hypocrite. He is an adult child gone wrong. Irresponsible and untrustworthy. He represents everything wrong in today’s republican party.

And he is worthy of every public kick he gets on these issues, snark or not. To Chris Healy fans - With love... This is the face of the republican party in Connecticut:


Healy really needs to lay off that ginned up Republican tonic that has him recklessly driving the CT GOP into the ditch. Doesn't Healy realize how much harm he does to his ever shrinking party and base nationally and in the state of Connecticut when he pulls cheap PR stunts like this? Or was he drunk when he wrote it?
And I stand by it as a snarky and honest assessment of Connecticut Republican Chris Healy.

Hugs and kisses to ACR at CLP too...

ACR said:

>>What is your partisan reason to explain why the Republican party is shrinking in Connecticut,

Huh?


More towns have a Republican at the head (Mayor, Town Council Chair, 1st Selectman, etc.) than at any time in over 40 years.

That’s “shrinking”?????

Further our state central is more hands on and has become a greater resource for our constituent party members than at any previous point - ever.

Don’t pull a strawman out and argue against your own point. Address the entire question:

Bad assumption there ACR. I am not a Dem. Just an independent with no party affiliation. What is your partisan reason to explain why the Republican party is shrinking in Connecticut, while the Democratic party is making some gains and the independents are the fastest growing part of Connecticut politics?

Including the stated qualifiers to the question in bold, ACR. Your answer is only arguing with your own made up point that I did not make. I know you can read and give an honest answer to the question, ACR, but I also know that you can cherry pick what you answer.

Did you not get the memo? People don’t discuss politics on republican terms anymore, ACR. And some of us play hardball. If you want to keep swinging at pitches I didn’t even make, you’ll strike out every time. :)

I am not a Dem…

Strike one!

I didn’t ask you that question, and you are smart enough to know that…

Strike two!

Care to take a third swing?

Though, I suggest ACR puts down the republican whiffle bat before he tries to answer.