I hope they mean talking about it...

"Oral sex linked to throat cancer"

Oh noooooes!

Glen "The Stewardess" Beck

David Waldman at dKos provides the paraphrased transcription of the most recent Glen Beck nutjobbery:

Blaming TV or radio hosts for the nutjob who killed three Pittsburgh police officers over the weekend is like blaming a flight attendant after a terrorist takes down a plane. In other words: Giving passengers a safety talk to prepare them for a worst-case scenario doesn't mean you are responsible should a terrorist make that worst-case scenario happen.

One person is providing important information. The other is a nutjob who would've acted no matter what.

Listen, Glen, and listen well...

The day I hear stewardesses calling on militant nutjobs to unfasten their seatbelts and prepare to rush the cockpit with their utility knifes in the upright position as part of their safety blurb is the day your most recent wingnutism will make sense when compared to your "grab yer guns before Obama does and surround them!" idiocy.

Video below:

The Courage Of the Vermont Congress

Many of us that support Marriage Equality didn't think they would have the votes to accomplish this...

VICTORY! Vermont votes for marriage equality!

Moments ago, the Vermont House voted 100-49 to override the marriage bill veto! The House vote, which followed the Senate voting 23-5 this morning to override Gov. Douglas’s veto, means that Vermont becomes the first state to OK marriage equality through the legislative process.

Vermont has now recognized the same Marriage Equality that Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa have already recognized.

[update] The NY Times explains why this is a bit of a surprise:

Approval had been expected in the Senate, where the vote was 23 to 5.

But the outcome in the House of Representatives was not clear until the final moments of a long roll call, when Rep. Jeff Young, a Democrat who voted against the bill last week, reversed his position. In the end the vote was 100 to 49, just slightly more than the required two-thirds majority of members present.

[udate deux] The Iowa Senate Majority leader, Mike Gronstal, is effectively blocking efforts to undo the recent decision of the Iowa Supremes:

One of my daughters was in the workplace one day, and her particular workplace at that moment in time, there were a whole bunch of conservative, older men. And those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country.

And my daughter Kate, after listening for about 20 minutes, said to them: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. My generation doesn't care.

I think I learned something from my daughter that day, when she said that. And I've talked with other people about it and that's what I see, Senator McKinley. I see a bunch of people that merely want to profess their love for each other, and want state law to recognize that.

Is that so wrong? I don't think thats so wrong. As a matter of fact, last Friday night, I hugged my wife. You know Ive been married for 37 years. I hugged my wife. I felt like our love was just a little more meaningful last Friday night because thousands of other Iowa citizens could hug each other and have the state recognize their love for each other.

No, Senator McKinley, I will not co-sponsor a leadership bill with you.

The video:

Good day for equal rights. Daughters and sons of miscegenation legal arguments past can cry me a river.

And the Prophetic Author Award Goes to...

Philippe Sands:

The Bush Six
By Jane Mayer - The New Yorker

About a year ago, a book came out in England that made a fascinating prediction: at some point in the future, the author wrote, six top officials in the Bush Administration would get a tap on the shoulder announcing that they were being arrested on international charges of torture.

If the prediction seemed improbable, the background of the book’s author was even more so. Philippe Sands is neither a journalist nor an American but a law professor and a certified Queen’s Counsel (the kind of barrister who on occasion wears a powdered horsehair wig) who works at the same law practice as Cherie Blair. Sands’s book, “Torture Team,” offers a scathing critique of officials in the Bush Administration, accusing them of complicity in acts of torture. When the book appeared, some scoffed. Douglas Feith, a former Pentagon official, dismissed Sands as “a British lawyer” who “wrote an extremely dishonest book.”

Last week, Sands’s accusations suddenly did not seem so outlandish. A Spanish court took the first steps toward starting a criminal investigation of the same six former Bush Administration officials he had named, weighing charges that they had enabled and abetted torture by justifying the abuse of terrorism suspects. Among those whom the court singled out was Feith, the former Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, along with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; John Yoo, a former Justice Department lawyer; and David Addington, the chief of staff and the principal legal adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Sands, previously, was involved in prosecuting former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, as was the Spanish judge presiding over the Bush torture case.

[update] Just some added info for your research purposes taken from a bunch of previous posts on this topic in my archives:

Abu Ghraib: The Unrated Story

Do not watch or click through on any of the links in this diary if you can't stomach torture, abuse, death, sexual abuse and degradation, etc. and NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

Sy Hersh has talked a bit about abuses at Abu Ghraib, but this time he gets the story from the General that investigatd the abuse, and General Taguba says that the investigation was blocked from going up the chain of command:

Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint. On January 13, 2004, a military policeman named Joseph Darby gave the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) a CD full of images of abuse. Two days later, General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, the director of the Joint Staff of the J.C.S., were e-mailed a summary of the abuses depicted on the CD. It said that approximately ten soldiers were shown, involved in acts that included:

Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains.

Taguba said, “You didn’t need to ‘see’ anything—just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value.”

I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba’s report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their “extremely sensitive nature.”) Taguba said that he saw “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.” The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. “It’s bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women’s panties,” Taguba said.

Via Salon, and don't bother to click through if you don't have the stomach for this stuff, and needless to say NOT SAFE FOR WORK:

279 photographs and 19 videos from the Army's internal investigation record a harrowing three months of detainee abuse inside the notorious prison -- and make clear that many of those responsible have yet to be held accountable.

snip

The 10 galleries of photo and video evidence appear chronologically in the left column, followed by an additional Salon report on prosecutions for abuse and an overview of Pentagon investigations and other resources.

Although the world is now sadly familiar with images of naked, hooded prisoners in scenes of horrifying humiliation and abuse, this is the first time that the full dossier of the Army's own photographic evidence of the scandal has been made public. Most of the photos have already been seen, but the Army's own analysis of the story behind the photos has never been fully told. It is a shocking, night-by-night record of three months inside Abu Ghraib's notorious cellblock 1A, and it tells the story, in more graphic detail than ever before, of the rampant abuse of prisoners there. The annotated archive also includes new details about the role of the CIA, military intelligence and the CID itself in abuse captured by cameras in the fall of 2003.

News you will never see from American news reporters on American Networks:

(Do not watch if you can't stomach torture, abuse, death, sexual abuse and degradation, etc. and NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)

On Wednesday 16 February 2006, Australian public broadcaster SBS current affairs program DATELINE telecast a segment featuring 60 new photos of the torture inflicted on prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These photos were secured by court order - the ACLU figures prominently in the report - but these photos haven't yet been shown in the media anywhere in the United States.

These files are all hosted on a server located in the United States to speed access for US viewers. If you do know how to use BitTorrent, please download the appropriate BitTorrent file and use that.

HIGH torrent: Link, MEDIUM torrent: Link, LOW torrent: Link

High download: Link, Mirror

Medium download: Link, Mirror

Low download: Link, Mirror

Waterboarding was way down the list of disgusting and criminal acts that prisoners were subjected to:

But The Daily Telegraph reported over the weekend that the documents actually “contained details of how British intelligence officers supplied information to [Mohamed’s] captors and contributed questions while he was brutally tortured.” In fact, it was British officials, not the Americans, who pressured Foreign Secretary David Miliband “to do nothing that would leave serving MI6 officers open to prosecution.” According to the Telegraph’s sources, the documents describe particularly gruesome interrogation tactics:

The 25 lines edited out of the court papers contained details of how Mr Mohamed’s genitals were sliced with a scalpel and other torture methods so extreme that waterboarding, the controversial technique of simulated drowning, “is very far down the list of things they did,” the official said.

Another source familiar with the case said: “British intelligence officers knew about the torture and didn’t do anything about it.”

“It is very clear who stands to be embarrassed by this and who is being protected by this secrecy. It is not the Americans, it is Labour ministers,” former shadow home secretary David Davis said. But one unnamed U.S. House Judiciary Committee member told the Telegraph that if President Obama “doesn’t act we could hold a hearing or write to subpoena the documents. We need to know what’s in those documents.”

And the British are just as complicit in these sick criminal acts perpetrated by many in the Bush administration. Will there be any real justice in the USA ever again?

Two US Soldiers Charged With Murder

Details of various charges and the accused:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US troops on Iraqi murder charge
Two American soldiers have been charged with the murder of an Iraqi prisoner, US military officials have said.

Staff Sgt Hal Warner and 1st Lt Michael Behenna are accused of the premeditated murder of Ali Mansour Mohammed.

They have also been charged with assault, making a false official statement and obstructing justice.

In other prison abuse news, further revelations on renditions and the prison at Diego Garcia continue to spin British politics:

Just three days after David Miliband's last attempt to draw a line under the story, the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee published its latest report on the British Overseas Territories (PDF), and was scathing about Diego Garcia, declaring that "it is deplorable that previous U.S. assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false. The failure of the United States Administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK Government inadvertently misleading our Select Committee and the House of Commons. We intend to examine further the extent of UK supervision of U.S. activities on Diego Garcia, including all flights and ships serviced from Diego Garcia."

These new revelations, of course, leave the U.S. administration looking like bald-faced liars and the British government looking like myopic dupes. Whether Michael Hayden was also duped is not known, but his strenuous denial, just five months ago, that a secret prison existed, which was manned by his own employees, will do nothing for the credibility of the U.S. administration, which likes to pretend that it does not torture and has nothing to conceal, but is persistently discovered not only being economical with the truth, but also behaving exactly as though it has guilty secrets to hide.

Whether this scandal will awaken much indignation in the American public remains to be seen, but it is hugely damaging to the British government, which is legally responsible for the activities that take place on its territory, however much it likes to hide behind "assurances" from its leaseholders that they have done nothing wrong.

It scarcely seems possible, but Diego Garcia's dark history has suddenly grown even darker.

Once upon a time, the United States of America was a nation of laws.

Torture Is Illegal

And these are all criminals:

ABC News reported tonight that President Bush’s most senior and trusted advisers met in “dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House” beginning in 2002 to approve the use of “combined” interrogation techniques (the joint use of harsh interrogation techniques). Those tactics included whether detainees “would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.”

Members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee — Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, George Tenet, and John Ashcroft — approved the use of these techniques. “Sources said that at each discussion, all the Principals present approved.” According to ABC’s report, Ashcroft indicated he was troubled by the meetings:

According to a top official, Ashcroft asked aloud after one meeting: “Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly.”

Those people need to be locked up...

Rethinking Torture Tapes and the 911 Commission

Former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, takes a look at the not so obvious concerning the destroyed torture tapes and the 911 commission:

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda's participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department's memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights." Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a "torture story." It is conceivable that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth?

Just some food for thought...

Canada Puts U.S. on Torture Watch List

This cannot be all that surprising since at the end of November Canadian Courts tossed out a “refugee/immigration” treaty with the US based, partially, on the courts recognition of the fact that the US tortures prisoners.

Via BuzzFlash and from CTV News:

Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list

Omar Khadr's lawyers say they can't understand why Canada is not doing more to help their client in light of new evidence that Ottawa has put the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on a watch list for torture.

Khadr -- a Canadian citizen who was just 15-years-old when he was captured in Afghanistan more than five years ago and taken to Guantanamo -- has claimed that he has been tortured at the prison. Now, CTV News has obtained documents that put Guantanamo Bay on a torture watch list.

Khadr's U.S. military lawyer says the new documents contradict Harper's assurances that his client is receiving fair treatment.

snip

Canada's new focus on torture was ordered by the inquiry into Maher Arar's nightmare in Syria. U.S. authorities sent Arar -- a Canadian of Syrian ancestory -- to Syria after he made a brief stopover in New York in 2002. They wrongly accused him of having links to terrorism in large part because of information provided by the RCMP.

Arar was sent to a Syrian prison where he was tortured for nearly a year. An inquiry into the Arar affair ordered a new focus on torture, and CTV News has learned that, as part of a "torture awareness workshop," diplomats are now being told where to watch for abuse.

Specific places noted for torture on their list include:

• Syria
• Iran
• Afghanistan
• China
• United States
• Guantanamo Bay
• Israel

Notable is the fact that more than half of the places specifically cited in a training manual for Canadian diplomats, Afghanistan, GITMO, the United States and even the Syrian prison Arar was sent to under the US rendition (kidnapping?) program, are torture havens all under the direct control of... The United States.

Here is a CTV News video on the story.
And another video report here.

In November, the Canadian Courts had cited torture as one of the reasons to ditch a treaty with the US on refugee immigration:

Canadian Courts on American Torture Policies:

The Canadian courts don't seem to think too highly of the American torture of prisoners:

The Federal Court of Canada Thursday struck down a refugee agreement [judgment, PDF] between Canada and the US, noting that the US does not meet international refugee protection requirements or respect international conventions against torture. Justice Michael Phelan essentially nullified the 2004 Safe Third Country Agreement , which barred foreign refugees who first arrived in the US from seeking refugee status in Canada and vice versa. Phelan noted that the US has not been compliant with the Refugee Convention or the UN Convention Against Torture. The court also held that the agreement discriminates against refugees based on how they first arrived in Canada and thus violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

The nullification of the agreement will likely result in Canada processing thousands more refugees each year. The US and Canadian governments have until January 14 to file an appeal. CTV News has more. [The National Post] has additional coverage.

This ought to make the crowd that wrapped themselves in faded flags feel pretty good about what they have accomplished under the criminal bush administration. This is the world view of America that you have created and supported.

Washington State Democratic Central Committee Passed Bush-Cheney Impeachment Resolution

Resolution Pertaining to Investigation and Impeachment Proceedings for George Bush and Dick Cheney

WHEREAS, there are already known and admitted illegal and impeachable actions on the part of George W. Bush, some examples being, in broad outline:

a) unlawful wire-tapping of American citizens,
b) deliberate manipulation of intelligence reports for the purpose of starting a war,
c) deliberate violations of international treaties pertaining to acts of war,
d) deliberate violations of international treaties pertaining to prisoners of war,
e) deliberate violations of constitutional rights provided in the Bill of Rights;

and... continue reading

Yeah... Impeach them.

Our politicians have gone beyond simply being embarrassing and should be considered criminal if they are not doing everything they can to stop this.

For video links and h/t jimstaro at ePluribus Media for video.

Why Some Democrats Refuse to Investigate for Impeachment - Part Deux

Just a rehash on the torture enabling situation. The other day I posted one of the main reasons why Dems continue to refuse to investigate and act on Impeachment:

Because some of the investigations would inevitably lead right back to some of their own members having been complicit in criminal actions:

It seems as if the "four" congressional leaders Harman refers to as knowing about the tapes were the chairs and ranking members of the intelligence committees: Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL), and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA). Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) took Goss' spot as chairman of the House intelligence committee that year when Goss became CIA director. Hoekstra told the AP that he didn't know a thing about either the tapes or their destruction. I'm calling Harman to ask her for her letter to the CIA about the tapes, and will bring it to you if and when I have it.

But the bottom line here is that at least some Congressional leaders knew something about the tapes and something about their destruction, and didn't say anything about either. Harman's silence is especially stunning: she co-chaired a joint Congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks in 2002 that didn't receive that very pertinent information. Why did she remain quiet about potentially criminal behavior? Marty Lederman has some thoughts here:

Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) CIA intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity -- but reveals nothing. Really, isn't it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the CIA program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence? ...

Jane Harman also knew of the intention to destroy the tapes, and she at least "urged" the CIA in writing not to do it. (Where were her colleagues?) But when she found out the CIA had destroyed the tapes, where was Harman's press conference? Where were the congressional hearings?

You are either with bush OR you are against him. If you enable the bush administration to cover up their crimes, you become part of the criminal conspiracy.

Glen Greenwald offers some further observations into this reality:

I continue to be amazed and disturbed by the number of people willing to defend the actions of Rockefeller and his comrades by claiming that these poor, victimized Congressional members just have no ability to do anything when they learn about outright lawbreaking by the administration. As I asked yesterday, why would they even bother to attend briefings if they believed that they were "powerless" to act even upon learning of serious illegalities? Here is the central purpose of the Select Committee on Intelligence -- the primary reason it exists, as stated by the resolution which created the Committee:

It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The Intelligence Committees were created as a response to the discovery in the 1970s of illegal conduct by the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The core function is to monitor what the intelligence community does and to "assure that such activities" are legal. It is a complete travesty for the senior Democrats on those Committees (and their apologists) to claim that they are powerless to act when learning of lawbreaking. Anyone who thinks that way should not be on the Committee. The idea that they can't do anything once learning of lawbreaking is the very opposite of the Committee's core purpose. But, of course, they were not and are not powerless to act. They simply chose not to act.

In addition to the other mechanisms for action identified here and elsewhere thus far that are available to Senators who learn of patently illegal behavior in a classified setting, key members of the Intelligence Committee could also refuse to cooperate in the enactment of legislation, block nominees, and otherwise thwart the administration's needs until there is some resolution. Such Senators could hold closed door hearings or announce publicly that they have learned of serious lawbreaking by the CIA (without specifying what the lawbreaking is) and demand that the administration agree to a classified setting to resolve those concerns (such as appointing a special counsel with security clearances or empowering a court able to investigate and adjudicate highly classified matters).

But they did none of that. They did the opposite: they continued to cooperate meekly with the administration, pass all of their demanded legislation, and keep quiet. Even for those who say that it's terribly unfair to expect our political leaders to subject themselves to any risk whatsoever in order to put a stop to such gross abuses, they could have acted in ways far short of some sort of melodramatic civil disobedience which would have risked imprisonment (i.e, they would not have had to go as far as actual leaders and patriots who did take risks in order to expose serious governmental wrongdoing).

If someone wants to defend these Democrats' complicit behavior (on the craven ground that what they did was understandable because it was politically wise), then they should make that argument. But nobody should pretend that these Senators and Representatives were "helpless" and had no options for putting a stop to Bush's torture programs and other lawbreaking if they were actually interested in doing so.

Needless to say, if anyone tries to argue that it is politically wise to ignore these crimes... They are no better than the neoconservatives and their GOPeeons that committed the actual crimes.

If there are Democratic party members that feel they are unable to do their jobs according to the responsibilities defined by their positions of power and the oaths they took to uphold The Constitution, up to and including putting impeachment back on the table, then I suggest they find a new line of work. Or, perhaps, prepare for a long visit to a prison with the other criminals they have enabled.

NY Times is late for April Fools Day?

I am guessing they got tired of me spamming them with applications to work for their Blogs?

What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias,
or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone — “snark.” If
something could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn’t go into the news pages of nytimes.com. Our ethics code promises that in all dealings with readers, “civility applies.”

A quote from my application cover page:

“It has always been my dream to work alongside the great snark writers of our time. Judy Miller, Bill Kristol, Joe Klein, David Broder, Gordon Smith, and a long list of the many leaders in snark that grace the pages of the NY Times on a regular basis. Sadly, they are all so good at what they do that their snark is seriously misunderstood by the unwashed masses, who honestly think they should be taking those writers seriously.

I know the NY Times are a little shy when it comes to admitting this fact, but it is truly award winning high brow snark, indeed. The void I would hope to fill is in providing the everyman's snark so the little people can begin to understand that the Op Eds or articles printed in jest in the NY Times, and clearly misunderstood by the readers, should never be used to justify wars or for making any serious policy decisions at all. It is, after all, only printed in one of the many infotainment sections.”

I guess I may need to update my resume since they seem to have found Billy Kristol’s particular brand of warmongering snark to be just a tad too high brow and sent him off to find work for a new right wing snark tank? (h/t Mock, Paper, Scissors)

Just had to see what the other side is thinking...

Or not thinking, as is often the case:

There is a line. A fine line. One between functioning democracy, with government support and oversight, and a world with government control of a market, dictatorial in nature. No, Mr. President, you are not coming up on this line. No, Mr. President- look behind you.

Ok. Shall we start with no bid contracts dictated by the Bush regime? Halliburton anyone? Blackwater? KBR? No? Ah... GM:

In a shocking and daring move, the White House forced out the head of the General Motors Corporation, Rick Wagoner (Hartford Courant). There is a notion, one that assures me in my heart that small businesses can succeed and that the American Dream is still alive- the free and open market. If a small business owner has to be afraid that if his company is having an off quarter, he will be replaced at the will of the government, what incentive does he have to start his business and perform the truest act of economic stimulation?

How the heck do you go from GM as your point to small business? Ok... That twist was as senseless as, well... As the rest of your piece.

Entrepeneurship, risk-taking in the business realm create jobs, create money. Not an Auto-Czar, an executive branch position with complete regulatory authority over one of our most suffering industries. Because we all know that government is the solution to our problems.

Well, yes. Most moderate Americans do believe that government needs to provide adequate regulations and oversight after witnessing the full blown failure of Reagonomics amplified by the extremist free market run amok pirates that blew the economy up.

For years, Democrats have been saying that Republicans and George Bush and government caused the crisis we are in. Republicans have been saying that Democrats and Chris Dodd are responsible. When will either side smarten up and realize the simple issue at stake: government is responsible for the mess we're in.

It is the Democrats fault when they have the presidency, but everyone else's fault when the Republicans do... Now we can all understand what republicans mean by personal responsibility. They mean to blame their mistakes on everyone and everything else. The GOP and their corporatist policies didn't do this... Nuh-Uh! Gotcha.

Please, don't take this as an anarchal rant. I'm not anti-government. I'm just against more government than we can afford. Do we need a central, national authority? Yes. Does that central authority need to have the power to regulate everything that exists? No.

Trust me here... An Anarchist would be insulted by both your efforts and your disjointed logic so far. And we understand that the only thing you are against is good government because that does not fit your flimsy talking point frames. Witness the proof of that:

The economy goes up and down, much like a baseball team. Every once in a while, a manager is replaced because the team isn't doing so hot. We've all seen it. But that decision is up to each individual club, not the baseball comissioner. The comissioner's job is to ensure a level playing field (no pun intended) for each team in the league. Why can't government act the same way? If it had for the past 15 years, maybe none of this would have ever happened and we wouldn't be worried about government take overs of independent industries.

Clinton did it! Never heard that one before... And clearly you never really studied Reaganomics. Nor do you understand that you are undeniably living in the wake of its destruction.

Director of Auto Communities. Seems like a fun job. I find it hard to believe, however, that individual freedom is not at stake. I find it hard to believe that the American Dream is not at stake. A dream that relies on independent risk. Only in failure can you know success. I sure hope success isn't too far off. But then again, maybe I'm just dreaming.

Ooooh! Freedumb is on the march. Again. I hope you get to know much more about success in your own special way. Because America can not afford to see anyone as scatterbrained as this piece you wrote proves you are ever getting near the levers of power. And I sure as hell hope the GOP did not take the risk of giving you wingnut welfare to write this drivel. Though, I would not be surprised if they did. The right wing was never any good with money.

Witness the end of yet another conservative ideological economic meltdown:

The Failure of Conservative Ideology is NOW (AGAIN)

This is an unusually large excerpt from C&L's Barbara O'Brien:

A (Pretty) Short History of Wingnutism:
"By now you probably see where we’re going. “American Way” conservatism was the dominant political philosophy in the 1920s, and the nation was governed by its principles through the Harding and Coolidge administrations, from 1921 to 1929. Some historians call this decade “the Republican Era.” The vigorous progressivism of 1900-1916 was vanquished, and the labor union movement lost ground. In fact, the longer one looks at America in the 1920s, the more familiar it gets — corporate profits rising faster than worker earnings; a crackdown on immigration; culture wars led by an aggressive Christian fundamentalist movement; and tax cuts galore. If they’d had iPods back then, you’d hardly know the difference.

Of course, it would come to pass that the Republican who won the 1928 presidential election by a landslide, Herbert Hoover, was probably sorry he won. The stock market crashed in October 1929, which marked the beginning of the Great Depression. The Depression was caused by a number of interacting factors, and since it was a worldwide phenomenon you can’t blame the Republicans for all of it. But in the United States many of those factors were created, directly or indirectly, by “American Way” conservative policies. Among these factors were a wildly overheated stock market (security regulation was socialism, after all) and the maldistribution of wealth that resulted from laissez-faire business policies. Since President Herbert Hoover was a tried-and-true “American Way” conservative, he mostly was at a loss to solve the nation’s economic problems, even though he had almost all of his four-year term to do so. In 1932 the nation turned to a liberal Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt, to make things right.

Righties are quick to point out that the New Deal had a limited impact on the Depression, and that the nation’s economy didn’t really pull out of the slump until the industrialization of World War II — over which FDR also presided. (This is just one of many examples of righties taunting lefties for not cleaning up rightie messes they couldn’t clean up themselves; Iraq is another.) But New Deal programs had a longer-term success in fostering economic stability. Federal deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, Social Security, increased government oversight of securities, and other New Deal innovations made Americans’ economic lives more secure and created a buffer against many of the factors that cause economic depressions.

And considering that rightie counter-arguments to the New Deal usually advocate returning to the same governing philosophy that allowed the Depression to happen, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take them seriously.

Anyway, after the FDR landslide in 1932 it was clear the right wing had fallen from grace. Righties spent the rest of the 1930s seething with resentment and planning a comeback. And just when they had a shot at re-taking the White House — bam, World War II happened. And this made the American Right look doubly stupid, because for the most part righties in the 1930s were isolationists who had not only pooh-poohed the threat of the Third Reich but had actually admired Mussolini.

After World War II righties rebounded with a fury. They did this in large part by taking the issue of national security away from the Democrats. It’s important to understand that the Right managed this not because of anything they actually accomplished, but through a “compilation of hysterical charges and bald-faced lies,” to quote Kevin Baker in this Harper’s article, “Stabbed in the Back,” which I vigorously urge you to read.

Much of the Red Scare and McCarthyist hysteria of the late 1940s and 1950s were as much about slapping down liberals and Democrats as it was about national security. See the Kevin Baker article for details. See also Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (Vintage/Random House, 1962), in particular pp. 41-42 (emphasis added):

The inquisitors were trying to give satisfaction against liberals, New Dealers, reformers, internationalists, intellectuals, and finally even against a Republican administration that failed to reserve liberal policies. What was involved, above all, was a set of political hostilities in which the New Deal was linked to the welfare state, the welfare state to socialism, and socialism to Communism. In this crusade Communism was not the target but the weapon, and it is for this reason that so many of the most ardent hunters of impotent domestic Communists were altogether indifferent to efforts to meet the power of International Communism where it really mattered — in the area of world politics."

Go read it.

See if you can easily pick out the parallels to many of the problems of today, and maybe begin to realize that not only has "The Great Republican Experiment" failed miserably, but that now is not the first time it has failed miserably.

Never again.

This is the second time just in the last century that your conservative ideological whack-jobbery has proven itself worthy of nothing but ridicule and scorn. And thus it shall remain the butt of all jokes, for ever more.

Reagonomics, the GOP, the "I got mine-ism" free market juice box republicanism that you all emulate will merely be hilarious punchlines as your party sinks further and further into the abyss of a control by radical bigots, Christianists/Dominionists , outright loonies, and other failed warmongers.

First UBS Client Goes Down: Rubinstein

According to the NY Times, the first of UBS' tax evading client list is being charged:

The client, Steven Michael Rubinstein, an accountant, was arrested in Boca Raton, Fla., and charged with one criminal count of filing a false and fraudulent tax return, according to court papers unsealed on Thursday.

The arrest is the first of a major American client of UBS, which has been under criminal investigation for helping scores of wealthy Americans evade taxes through secret offshore accounts that went unreported to the Internal Revenue Service. It signals that federal authorities are making good on a promise to pursue American clients suspected of tax evasion, and in some cases to make indictments.

The money hidden away for him by UBS? Around $6,000,000.00.

Mr. Rubinstein had an account with UBS worth at least $6 million, including stock and gold coins worth $2 million, according to court papers filed in Federal District Court in Fort Lauderdale. He holds both United States and South African passports.

The gold coinage were South African Krugerrands.

There only about 19,000 more tax delinquents to go.

Meanwhile, never forget that Phil Gramm was on the receiving end of an orchestrated McCain campaign Friday Night Dump during the elections because of his lobbying and working directly for UBS.