QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Rush Limbaugh actually said this on the air today. He wasn't kidding.
"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail; he knows what's going on. He knows that a Democrat [sic] Party -- the Democrat [sic] Party -- is attempting to find anybody but him to blame.
"He knows if he plays his cards right that he's just a 'victim.' He's the latest in a never ending parade of victims brought about by the 'unfairness of America.' The 'bigotry, racism, homophobia' of America. The 'mean-spiritedness of America.' [...]
"That smiling mugshot -- this guy clearly understands he's getting all the attention, and he understands he's got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything they can to make sure he's not convicted of murder."
No one could possibly believe this garbage. It's idiotic gibberish, disconnected from reality on multiple levels.
But here's the follow up for any Republican willing to answer: do you agree with Rush Limbaugh's assessment? Do you believe Democrats have offered their "full support" to a gunman who killed six innocent people and tried to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman? Is the GOP also convinced that Democrats want to ensure the killer's acquittal?
Or, for once in their lives, will Republicans have the guts and decency to say, "No, I think Rush Limbaugh is wrong"?
Of course, it's a good idea to try to put Republicans on the spot. But does Steve really understand what's going on here? Limbaugh's entire career has involved making outrageous accusations that no one can take seriously on one level. That's what his "I'm an entertainer" get-out-of-jail-free card is all about, if the going gets too rough. But until it gets too rough for Limbaugh, creating this sort of malicious, slanderous fantasy rap is just pure id-indulgence for his audience. He can say anything about liberals, or feminists, or Democrats, or anyone he chooses to pick on, and what are they going to do about it?
So you say it's a lie? Well, the very fact that he can lie about you with impunity just shows who's boss, now doesn't it? Not that he's going to come right out and admit it. But at one level, that's very much what the message is. And that sort of impudent lying is not just confined to Rush Limbaugh, or rightwing talk radio folks in general. The whole "death panels" lie was an example of that, with the whole GOP on board. The "global warming hoax" narrative, too.
Civility is about having some sort of social decorum, and incivility is about lacking that social decorum. But this is something that goes much deeper--it's about a total lack of respect for the truth, a total indulgence of id. Whatever you want to be true, you simply affirm it to be. Which gives you a Nazi socialist Muslim Kenyan president, presto-chango! And it's that total self-indulgence of the political id that's the missing element in most accounts of what's so terribly wrong with our politics today.
When Obama said yesterday that "only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation," he blithely merged civility and honesty together. But they are not one and the same. Indeed, Obama himself has already proven quite adept at smoothly telling lies--about his commitment to civil liberties and the rule of, about fighting for the public option, about actually listening to those who elected him, who worked so hard for his election. He is, in short, a politician of only average integrity at best. He uses his civility shtick to skate on--and this, in itself, is a very dishonest thing to do.
Which is why an Obama-lead Democratic opposition is never going to effectively combat the Limbaughs of this world. There will only be a shadow-play, never anything substantial. Because both sides are lying through their teeth, and ultimately it is the lying, more than incivility, that marks our political sickness unto death.
I have more than a few Tea Party adherents in my family who, prior to this summer, used to make a habit of sending me every little headline about how cold and snowy it was and how those "facts" proved that global warming was a fallacy being undone with each snowflake drifting down to earth. Oddly enough, they never sent me a single headline this summer about how unbelievably hot it was in the Northeast. I guess while I was bobbing around the bayous Louisiana they were reading the World Meteorological Organization's Press Release No. 904 which came to the following conclusion: "The year 2010 is almost certain to rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850" and its byline: "2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010, warmest 10-year period." Well now, as if by magic, the spate of cold weather and overly abundant snowfall gripping the Northern Hemisphere has set off a new round of debate, doubt and denial as it relates to the changing climate.
Global Warming is not a hot button issue with me and I believe that the related science is still in the process of being validated. That along with the fact that some of the findings have been manipulated for political purposes makes for a situation where the jury is still out with the final verdict still in the process of being formulated. Likewise the same holds true for most of the counterarguments. However, none of the aforementioned takes away from the fact that there are discernable changes in the climate that cannot be denied. There is little reason to doubt that there have been major changes in the climate in the last 50+ years. To deny that is to make an argument contrary to historical fact. At 57 I can remember winters that were much different than they are now, at least around the Northeast where I grew up. One of the great misconceptions surrounding the global warming debate hinges around snowfall and temperatures. There is nothing inconsistent with the general theory of global warming where some regions will grow colder with increased amounts of snow fall while others see their climate grow warmer. It hinges in part on the changes in the ocean current, the jet stream and the Central Asian snow pack. Moreover what the opponents of global warming fail to realize in pointing out the increase in snowfall this year and last is that the debate about climate is about trends, not a snapshot of a series of weather events within a given winter or within several winters. Focusing on short term events instead of long term trends serves to undermine an opponent's counter argument as it fails to account for the larger, longer term picture. It fails because climate is a long-term trend whereas weather is the short term manifestation of climate and to focus on a handful of weather events while ignoring the longer term trends is to invite a flaw into one's analysis. That flaw ultimately leads to misconstrued and faulty conclusions.
Judah Cohen of Atmospheric and Environmental Research has recently published findings that effectively debunk the idea that the increased snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is inconsistent with the idea that the overall climate is warming. Quoting Dr. Cohen:" The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes... Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth's frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world's major cities are having colder winters... As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased. The sun's energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere...That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century." A further scientific elaboration on Dr. Cohen's model and an assessment of its accuracy can be found in a National Science Foundation Special Report entitled "Predicting Seasonal Weather, A Special Report."
Yet in contrast to the scientific findings that have been put forth from reputable organizations such as the National Science Foundation and Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a large element of the opposition's argument seems to hinge upon conspiracy theories, an anti-intellectual bias or the preaching's of that ever present claque of political entertainers who make their living on cable television masquerading as political analysts. Needless to say, it's definitely a hot button issue among the Tea Party crowd to deny the climate changes that have taken place. John M. Broder in an article entitled "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith" detailed the extent to which members of the Tea Party Movement are willing to accept anything but science in their efforts to dispute the scientific data contained in those reports that postulate that the world's climate is changing due to global warming. Quoting Broder: "Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party Movement... For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth." Citing a New York Times / CBS poll conducted in October, Broder showed the degree to which members of the Tea Party Movement differ from the general public on the issue of global warming. Tea Party Movement supporters are considerably more skeptical when it comes to the existence and effects of global warming than the American public generally. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that the problem of global warming was here and now versus 49 percent of the public at large. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that "global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view" and, "8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed."
Broder links the sentiments of the Tea Party Movement's opposition to global warming theories with other groups that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. He points out that the fossil fuel industries have spent $500 million dollars since 2009 on lobbying against climate change legislation, that they have funded "lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies" and "waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming", as well as "paid for Web sites to question the science." At the same time the anti global warming rhetoric has been a staple on the talks shows of America's preeminent political entertainers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and of course, Sarah Palin. Promoting anti-global warming skepticism has been a core tenet of right wing groups like Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party cash cow, Freedom Works.
All this begs a number of questions: If there is such a compelling body of scientific knowledge that disproves the theory of global warming, then why not just stick with the science and forgo the political theatrics? Why spend millions of dollars on lobbying and public relations to discredit the theory of global warming by raising doubts when you could just produce objective hard science results that point to the contrary? Surely the advocates of global warming theory were set back last summer when it was found that several scientists in England had fiddled with scientific findings for political reasons. That having happened, wouldn't those who oppose global warming theory been better served by a counterargument based on facts at a time when their opponent's integrity was in question? Or, conversely is their counterargument better served by the image of doubters poking around among snowdrifts with their yardsticks in some unscientific attempt to dispute actual scientific findings? Why do the doubters engage in deflection by saying that the argument surrounding global warming is really Marxist wealth redistribution disguised as science when the scientific reports don't include any mention of politics and policy? Perhaps someone should clue these opponents in to the fact that we live in an age dominated by science and technology and that any disputing of hard science is not likely to come about via conspiracy theories, unsupported skepticism or Biblical quotes that address man's relationship with the natural world within which he exists.
Back on December 9th, in a post entitled "Fox Fair and Balanced" on Health Care Debate.....NOT!" I pointed out how the Fox News Network had deliberately tried to skew the national discussion on health care reform in such a way as to discredit the concept of a public option. Well just yesterday The Saint Petersburg Times' Pulitzer Prize winning affiliate, PolitiFact.com published:"PolitiFact's Lie of the Year: 'A Government Takeover of Health Care". This article pointed out how, when the facts are objectively analyzed, that for all of the rhetoric surrounding health care reform as being Socialist, it was in fact far from it .
Well with the health care debate behind us and with those facts on the table, the folks at PolitiFact's.com have detailed the inaccuracies of this conservative claim, labeling it the political lie of 2010. This falsehood was second only to Michele Bachmann's bizarrely absurd claim that Barack Obama's trip to India would cost 200 Million Dollars a day. Politifact.com deconstructs the logic behind the argument that "ObamaCare" represents a "government takeover of health care" with the following facts:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
PolitiFact reporters have studied the 906-page bill and interviewed independent health care experts. We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover because it relies largely on the existing system of health coverage provided by employers.
It's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers. But it is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market."
This very argument was raised last February when the renowned health care economist Uwe Reinhardt published an article entitled: "A Government Takeover of Health Care? Reinhardt came to the following conclusion: "A common refrain among critics of the health reform bills passed by the House and the Senate is that they constitute a "complete government takeover of 17 percent of the American economy."How could this be so? Start with the $950 billion price tag over the next decade for federal subsidies toward the purchase of private health insurance. Divide that amount by $34 trillion, the current projection for total national health spending over the next decade even in the absence of health reform. You will get 2.8 percent. Does that, then, constitute a government takeover of our health system?" Reinhardt concluded that the proposed reforms at the time, while certainly representing a major intrusion by the Federal Government into the health care process, were necessary as the system was "wasteful and unwieldy" and "would require substantial intrusion of government into the system, as evidently the system cannot correct itself."
Thus with the benefit of hindsight and with the 2010 elections where "ObamaCare" was certainly a topic of discussion now history, the question arises: To what extent have the American people been misled, if not outright bamboozled by the ultra right campaign against health care reform and it's conflating of that topic with the conjured up "specter of creeping Socialism?" To my mind the conservative attack on health care reform fits very neatly into a pattern of history that stretches all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt's first mention of the need for some type of national health care system. Since that time, health care reform has dovetailed neatly into more than one of the "red scares" that have accompanied this debate and that of progressive reform in general. Then like now, health care reform was seen as something that was tied to a decline of freedom in America and its replacement with that European import labeled "Socialism." Remember how Ronald Reagan once told us that the enactment of Medicare would bring about the decline of freedom in America and how we would all one day tell our grandchildren what it was once like to live in a free country? And just like then, these claims have now been proven by facts to be far fetched at best and fictitious at the very worst. Thus have those Americans who bought into this rhetoric of fiction and fear become nothing more than the "useful idiots' for those on the far right who have a vested interest in the status quo? Have they in so doing sacrificed their own best interests so as to avoid a "Socialist" threat that doesn't even exist in today's America? Or, have just so many Americans become fooled by the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as to be unable to distinguish fact from fantasy and what does that say about the future of American Democracy?
(A thoroughly disgusting state of affairs - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
After Ahmed Ghailani was found guilty of participating in a conspiracy to bomb two U.S. embassies in November, a conviction that could land him life in prison (his sentencing hearing is scheduled for January), the usual slate of right-wing pundits took to the airwaves, eager to denounce President Obama for trying the suspected terrorist at all.
Liz Cheney declared that the guilty verdict "signals weakness in a time of war."
John Yoo said prosecutors were "lucky to even get one conviction," adding that "It is really hard to see what the upside is to having civilian trials."
And Laura Ingraham, sitting in for Bill O'Reilly on Fox, called trying terror suspects in federal court "insane," "wrong" and "potentially dangerous."
Republicans have not even popped the corks of their celebratory champagne bottles yet and already there is a anti-Tea Party coup in the works the goal of which is to torpedo the presidential aspirations of Sarah Palin before her campaign even gets underway. A damming article from Politico which broke just yesterday revealed a concerted if uncoordinated effort taking shape among Republican leaders to see that Palin does not secure the 2012 Republican nomination for president. Quoting Politico:"Interviews with advisers to the main 2012 presidential contenders and with other veteran Republican operatives make clear they see themselves on a common, if uncoordinated, mission of halting the momentum and credibility Palin gained with conservative activists by plunging so aggressively into this year's midterm campaigns...There is rising expectation among GOP elites that Palin will probably run for president in 2012 and could win the Republican nomination, a prospect many of them regard as a disaster in waiting..."There is a determined, focused establishment effort ... to find a candidate we can coalesce around who can beat Sarah Palin," said one prominent and longtime Washington Republican. "We believe she could get the nomination, but Barack Obama would crush her." Thus it would appear that the trains are already on the track for what will be the first train wreck between the G.O.P. esthablishment and the Tea Party Movement.You can add to this developing drama the existing controversy between Ms. Palin and Tea Party star Joe Miller, the current Alaska Senatorial contender whom Palin backed against Lisa Murkowski only to have Miller short change Palin when it came time to endorse her presidential aspirations. This G.O.P. esthablishment - Tea Party friction has been below the surface since the movement gained traction during the 2009 health care reform debates. Appearing on Fox News with Greta Van Sustern in the summer of 2009, Rush Limbaugh was nothing if not emphatic in his denunciation of the Republican leadership and the veiled contempt that they have for the Tea Party Movement generally and Sarah Palin in particular. Tensions only grew more intense as the Tea Party Movement knocked off several Republican veterans and hand picked contenders during primary season. Thereafter the movement went on to put a number of Republicans not currently running for re-election on notice that they too were in the movement's cross hairs.
In an interview with the National Journal, Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell said: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president," Is McConnell's rhetoric aimed at placating the Tea Party or does he actually believe that in the depths of the Great Recession, this is the single most important goal for a victorious Republican Party? What happened to the never-ending Republican cry: "Where are the jobs?" What became of all of the talk of reducing the size of government, of tax policy and talk about how to "grow the economy."? Now on the brink of victory the Republican elites have shown their hand and it consists first and foremost of political priorities aimed at winning the 2012 presidential election and making sure that Sarah Palin isn't around to screw things up. What happened to the G.O.P's big effort to "listen to the American people" this past summer? Thus we see just how important the dire state of the economy is to the elites who fashion Republican political strategy. Have McConnell and his lieutenants already misread the election's outcome, taking it to mean that they have a mandate in spite of the fact that they are polling at lower favorability ratings then the Democrats that are about to be turned out of office? Have they misread a vote of protest for an endorsement of the Republican Party line which it can't possibly be given the G.O.P.s historically low standing among voters? That said, how long would it be before the voters come down with that old sinking feeling of buyer's remorse? Surely if the immediate follow on to the midterm elections is the out break of an intra-party civil war within the G.O.P. what else could a weary and disgruntled electorate feel but buyer's remorse, dismay and disgust. The election's outcome will certainly cause the Democrats to circle the wagons and try to regroup for 2012. But it already seems like the G.O.P. and the Tea Party are in the process of circling the rifles into a circular firing squad and that can't be good at a time like this when the country is desperately in need of solutions to deep seated problems of long standing. The final question from all of this is: Has the Republican Party gotten more than it bargained for in its marriage of convenience with the Tea Party and is it too late to unwind the relationship before it tears the G.O.P. to shreds in an intraparty conflict that could end the Republican Party as we presently know it?
Americans to some degree and particularly those on the Right are now beset by a true conundrum. Is Barack Obama a Christian or a Muslim? According to the latest Pew Research polling: "nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama's religion is." Well, it's no wonder people are so confused, especially when two of the most prominent talking heads on the far right differ as to what is the actual religion of the President. If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren't on the same page on this, how can we expect the lowliest schlep to know what's the truth?
In a recent anti-Obama rant, Mr. Limbaugh intoned: "Imam Hussein Obama is probably the best anti-American president we've ever had." Limbaugh has been at center stage in railing against the proposed "Ground Zero Mosque' while trying to somehow insinuate that Obama's defense of the constitutional right to religious freedom somehow proves that the President is an Islamic. Meanwhile just this past Sunday, in a follow up to his Lincoln Memorial Rally, Mr. Beck appeared with Chris Wallace of Fox News to proclaim that Obama is in fact not a racist after all, but a practicing Christian who just happens to be enamored with Liberation Theology. This brand of Christian thought is defined: "as a movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions." According to Beck himself: "he misunderstood Obama's philosophy and his theology...which is liberation theology... he didn't understand, really, his theology his viewpoints come from liberation theology. That's what I think as in -- at the gut level I was sensing. And I miscast it as racism. And really, what it is liberation theology." Thus, its now official, according to Glenn Beck, Barak Obama is legitimately some sort of Christian. Well fancy that, one of the most prominent forces in the American right has reaffirmed that the President is in fact a Christian while the other is still working overtime to convince Americans otherwise.
So what is really going on here? Is there a genuine question as to Barack Obama's faith or are we in fact looking at a garden variety witch hunt perpetrated from two different angles in a crass and unvarnished attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president through the propagation of falsehoods? Do Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh really believe what they are publicly saying or are they and their followers just unable to face up to the fact that their idea of what America should be just does not comport with what people voted for in 2008. Is that truth just too much to bear? And where is the leadership that we should be seeing from responsible and respectable Republicans in opposition to this political falderal and farce? Perhaps the leaders of the G.O.P. are just too cowed by the far right to stand up for political decency or perhaps they just don't have the requisite courage. In a recent op-ed on this very topic, Paul Krugman opined: "What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don't consider government by liberals - even very moderate liberals - legitimate. Obama's election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn't, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage. And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage...Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we've just seen, he's doing his best to insinuate Obama is a Muslim. And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found." That said, it's more than evident that the time for the truly patriotic to stand up for political decency and honest debate is now and that's especially true for the leadership of the G.O.P. How can they legitimately ask for our votes when they allow this type of anti-democratic demagoguery to take place right under their noses and in plain view? Perhaps this is what you get from a political party that may be on its way out of business in the long run. Then again, maybe it's what you get when there is just a lack of courage in a party that has for so long prided itself as the repository of "real American values." At any rate every American voter has to ask himself this question: If the leaders of the Republican Party lack the courage to take on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, where will they find the courage and stamina required to get us out of the Great Recession or face down Al Qaida or any other threat that will surely emerge in the brave new world of this new century? Failing that courage, do they really deserve our votes?
Limbaugh was yesterday's "Worst Person in the World" for his racial pandering while talking about George Steinbrenner's death (clip below), but there was much more in that same vein throughout the show, as Media Matters documented.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: "George Steinbrenner has passed away at age 80. That cracker made a lot of African-American millionaires. George Steinbrenner, the classic capitalist. Everybody around him became wealthy. And like most successful capitalists, he made the people around him wealthy, and a lot of African-American millionaires along the way. And at the same time, he fired a bunch of white guys as managers, left and right."
Now, in this country right now, we are spending $2 billion a year subsidizing the big four sports: baseball, basketball, football and hockey. It accounts for all of the profits of that industry and more. Now, there may be individual teams that make money, but the industry as a whole is not profitable. And that's astonishing because the big four leagues are exempt from the laws of competition. By the way, irony is not dead, because here are people who are in the business of competition on the field who are exempted by law from the rules of economic competition.
Now, New York is the largest media market in the country, so surely the Yankees don't need taxpayer subsidies, right? Well, need them or not, the Yankees are the kings of taxpayer subsidies, as documented by Neil deMause on the Field of Schemes blog, (a spin-off of the book of the same name).
I once heard conservative columnist David Brooks refer to a Republican Party political miscalculation as stupidity on stilts. Well, courtesy of the national media, the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has provided a few prominent people on the right with a new opportunity to once again make fools of themselves.
Just days after the Deepwater Horizon collapsed and sank, Rush Limbaugh opined on his April 29th show: "Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day... But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here." Okay Rush, I'll play the game, who actually blew up the Deepwater Horizon, environmentalists or the "Federal Swat Teams" that are supposed to be securing the oil patch? I know that Greenpeace has a ship it employs to disrupt whaling, but which environmentalist group has the capability to pull off an act of sabotage a mile down on the ocean floor? Could it be that this act of environmental sabotage is actually for the purposes of furthering a secret green agenda or could it be that having recently endorsed offshore oil exploration as a component of a new energy policy; Barack Obama has now destroyed an oilrig as a means of achieving energy independence?
Appearing days later on Fox and Friends former Bush White House spokesperson Dana Perino, suggested a conspiracy was afoot: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You have to wonder...if there was sabotage involved." Well that's certainly a prescient line of logic coming from someone who publicly admitted that she "didn't really know much about the Cuban Missile Crisis", what was arguably the most dangerous two weeks in history. Is it not more than a little comical that fresh from her regular pratfalls in the White House, Ms. Perino feels rather qualified to comment on offshore oil drilling and underwater pyrotechnics? I mean, after all it's pretty impressive for someone who majored in mass communications and public affairs to now have such a firm grasp on the particulars of ocean engineering and underwater ordinance. Is it me or is some of this stuff is just too ridiculous to be taken seriously?
However, in what may be the most ironic commentary of all, Michael Brown the former Director of FEMA during the Bush Administration contends that Obama wants to capitalize on the Deepwater Horizon disaster so as to pander to environmentalists. Quoting Brown: "They want this crisis so they can respond to it and shut down oil and gas drilling for being too dangerous." Brown went on to suggest that Obama will use the current disaster to impose new restrictions on the coal industry. Well coming from a guy who's primary qualification for being Director of FEMA was his experience with the International Arabian Horse Association, this sort of commentary is more than just a bit comical. After all, in the days leading up to Hurricane Katrina, Brown had been given sufficent warning of impending disaster by the National Weather Service whereas the Deepwater Horizon disaster was unpredicted. Thus the two events are not exactly congruent, except perhaps, for the geography. Who could ever forget Bush's praise for Brown during the Katrina Crisis: "Brownie, you're doing a hell of a job." Days later, Brown was sacked and yet today he feels qualified to second guess the Obama Administration based on his own botched handling of Katrina and it's aftermath.
If stupidity makes you laugh, well Limbaugh, Perino and Brown can certainly be considered headline acts in what has become a fully booked and never ending theater of the absurd on the far right. Don't get me wrong, thus far the Obama Administration has definitely made mistakes in handling the Deepwater Horizon crisis and there is nothing funny in that. But to suggest that Obama and his consort are destroying oilrigs to further an agenda friendly to the environment is beyond absurd and borders on the surreal. Like those crackpots on the far left, who continue to maintain that the Bush Administration was either behind the 9/11 attacks or knew something of them, these characters are just as absurd and moronic in their claims that Obama has a hand in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. I can't help but laugh as the jokes not on the Obama Administration, but on Limbaugh, Perino and Brown for believing their own content free cackle. Likewise the laughs on those people who turn to the likes of Limbaugh or Fox News for serious political analysis or commentary and take much of what they hear as gospel. Just a few weeks ago Bill O'Reilly claimed that comedian Jon Stewart of the Daily Show had become the point man for left-wing attacks on the right and asked why there were no conservative comedians on the air to counteract Stewart and the rest of the left leaning late night comedy crowd. Well Bill, their out there, you just need to know where to look for them.
On April 19th, on the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, MSNBC will televise live footage of interviews with Timothy McVeigh, the right wing mastermind of the attack. In light of all the turbulence and controversy surrounding the administration of Barack Obama, is this just another case of crass sensationalism or does it serve as a timely, in your face, reminder of what constitutes an extreme threat to public safety?
In my last two articles: Coming Unhinged on the Far Right and Hutaree Militia: Foiled Fantasy of a Citizen's Uprising, I pointed out what I believe to be an undeniable trend towards a violent confrontation between the government and the far right. I experienced some degree of pushback from conservatives who fell back on the argument that the left had committed plenty of violent acts in the sixties, as if that were somehow relevant today. Nowhere in either of these articles did I ignore, condone or endorse left wing violence. In fact I roundly deplored all political violence:" It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means."
Many conservatives would point to an incident of labor thuggery by SEIU members, the Weathermen Bombings or the Seattle World Trade Organization anarchist riots as being somehow equivalent to the damage done in Oklahoma City or on par with the numerous deaths thus far committed by anti-government extremists since the inauguration of Barak Obama. In doing so, they are deliberately ignoring the facts that currently exist. Some critics went so far as to label the recent reports by the Southern Poverty Law Center as just a bunch of "liberal propaganda" for having pointed out the exponential growth in hate groups and anti-government "patriot" organizations since the Obama election. This argument, that past left-wing terror is somehow relevant to dealing with today's clear and present danger, is a straw man argument being made by people who are fooling themselves with a historically challenged analysis in assessing the present situation. Its either that or they are so heavily invested in an anti-Obama crusade that they have become complacent in accepting this threat as it has yet to produce another Oklahoma City. Thus far it serves to support their anti-government animus so they have implicitly accepted the rhetoric while not actually endorsing violent acts.
I spent the last week with my reserve unit where I am part of an armed maritime security / law enforcement team. One of our team leaders is also a U.S. Marshall and SWAT team member with a background in having dealt with anti-government groups. We got on to the topic of domestic terror and his name and office will remain anonymous. I asked him if he had witnessed a significant rise in the number of anti-government organizations and he answered yes to that question. I asked him if they were predominately right wing and he said while there are some on the left, there were more on the right. Furthermore, I asked him if the findings of the Southern Poverty Law Center constituted legitimate research, again he agreed with me that their findings are consistent with what he was seeing from with inside the Marshall's Service. He went on to say that the Secret Service was working overtime to keep up with all of the potential threats that have emerged in the last six months.
On this Sunday's Chris Matthews Show the topic of domestic terror was front and center and Matthews presented two quotes from right wing extremists to underline his point that this is a serious problem. Michael Savage on his April 9th Savage Nation Show said: What we need is a vigorous right-wing movement in America, not a Tea Party. And you need to face off against those scum on the left and then you'll have a nation. Then there was Mike Vanderboegh of Freedom Radio on March 17 who advocated going for the throats of the country's elites. Finally, Nora O'Donnell pointed out how Sarah Palin starts off so many of her speeches with "Do you love you freedom." implying that the current administration is bent on taking it away. If anyone can claim, that at least the Savage and Vanderboegh quotes are not an incitement to violent behavior that would to me constitute an act of outright self-denial.
If individuals are being complacent in their implicit acceptance of this incendiary rhetoric, what then is the position being taken by the Republican Party? I found it interesting that every one of Matthews' panelists pointed out that to date, the G.O.P. has said very little in the way of condemning those on the far right who have put forth politically violent and vitriolic commentary. A salient point made by the commentators was that Fox News had allowed both Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck to run wild with their comments and that the G.O.P. of today lacks the moderating forces of thirty years ago who would have distanced the Party from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Joe Klein, having looked up the meaning of sedition said, the current language of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin "came up against the seditious." Even Kathleen Parker who is listed on the conservative TownHall.com website of conservative columnists said:" The Republican Party must distance itself from the far right otherwise it will be seen as complicit."
In the final analysis, when you take in to account the totality of the present situation, I think the MSNBC airing of the McVeigh Tapes should serve as a reminder of just how dangerous and incendiary rhetoric can become. That said, it is impossible to deny that there is an element of the sensational in the airing of McVeigh's interviews. But it is also hard to deny that there are those among us who in their deep dislike of Barak Obama and dynamic social change are silently endorsing the very language on the part of leading right-wing politicians and media personalities, which could lead us, God forbid, down the road to another Oklahoma City.
Conservative columnist, David Brooks once pointed out that the Internet has had the net effect of not bringing us closer together, but rather, driving us further apart. By allowing individuals to coalesce into narrower, self-reinforcing groups - based on political, ideological, religious or regional sentiments - the Internet has created a society that is characterized by many separate groups where communication is largely within and between group members. Brooks went on to say that one could get up and watch Fox News from dawn to dusk, read conservative newspapers or magazines and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity on talk radio and thus, never come across a competing idea all day. Likewise, the same sort of thing happens amongst the denizens of the left. It reminds me of a comment made by Norman Mailer after the Bush victory in 2004: "How could Bush have won, I don't know anyone who voted for him." Mailer was reflecting the fact that as a resident of New York City, one of the Bluest in America, you would never find a Bush supporter, unless you deliberately left the insularity of your own social group.
That brings me to the point of this piece. Many of us who utilize the blogs to traffic in political thought tend to stay on those blogs that are user friendly. We tend to blog on those sites that are supportive of the ideas we ourselves promote and favor. At the same time there are those on the far right who are doing the same thing, peddling their ideas or attacks against the current administration and Progressive ideas in general. These attacks on the very essence of Progressive thought go largely unchallenged with no more than a handful of stalwart progressives waging a counterattack and enduring a tremendous amount of vitriol and abuse in the process. Thus it is time for us to sally forth and bring the battle to the opponent's home turf. Anyone who has had a peek at the latest trio of reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center knows full well just how violent the rhetoric on the right has become. All one need do is to look at the attacks against those who voted for health care or consider the case of the Hutaree Militia as proof positive that things are getting more confrontational and vicious.
I regularly dust it up with the wing nuts on TownHall.com but there are also several others like AmericanThinker.com; Human Events, and RedState.com to name just a few.
It would be great if we could get some help battling lies and misinformation on these sites and others like them. Townhall.com in particular is easy to deal with, as they don't restrict your participation unless you engage in bona-fide hate speech. AmericanThinker.com screens your input and RedState.com will redact your comments if they don't agree with you. I had an article dispelling the lies on health care redacted and I have since been barred from this site so you may only be able to get one shot at them and then you are done. If you're up for the fight, and you ought to be, considering the stakes, the links are below.
We just fought and won some semblance of a health care reform program and there are plenty of other important battles ahead. As Progressives we need to learn how to throw a punch, figuratively, and stop being seen as a bunch of kumbaya signing pushovers who let the right push us around. My advice to you is the same that Stonewall Jackson gave a group of cadets at the outset of the Civil War. When asked just how bad he expected things to get he replied: "If I were you I would draw my sword and throw away the scabbard."
It is no secret that in this current environment with so many workers unemployed, underemployed and making less money that anger is rampant among American workers. It is understandable as working America watches the bankers who crashed our economy costing them millions of jobs get bailed out while in every town in America they are still hurting. This on top of the fact that Corporate America has stagnated wages on jobs they have not shipped overseas to virtual slave markets. Yes, anger is justified and rampant in many unemployment lines and workplaces. However, working America must be very careful of how to channel this understandable anger. You see, just like in past days forces of hatred are seeking to divide workers keeping them from forming a united front to really change this country and their own lots in life.
Rush Limbaugh has complained today that "worker", "storefront" and "factory" are Marxist-Leninist terms.
Rush had better not use the term "capitalism" either, since according to noted Conservative Russel Kirk in 1963, Marx invented that too:
Did you know that "capitalism" is a term coined by Karl Marx? Like most Marxist terms, it is loaded and misleading to employ. So I never advocate or defend the abstraction called "capitalism."
I don't really know if Kirk is right about this, Wiki provides a more complex picture:
The initial usage of the term capitalism in its modern sense has been attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861.[24] Marx and Engels referred to the capitalistic system (kapitalistisches System)[25][26] and to the capitalist mode of production (kapitalistische Produktionsform) in Das Kapital (1867).[27] The use of the word "capitalism" in reference to an economic system appears twice in Volume I of Das Kapital, p. 124 (German edition), and in Theories of Surplus Value, tome II, p. 493 (German edition). Marx did not extensively use the form capitalism, but instead those of capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear more than 2600 times in the trilogy Das Kapital.
So maybe it wasn't Marx, but was Blanc and Proudhon, which is no help to Rush since both of them were socialists. It's getting hard for Rush to avoid socialism. There is evidently no respite, not even in Costa Rica.
Having spent most of March 21st (the day health care reform passed in the House and the day of the immigration rights march) inside the boiler room vote whipping operation, I missed most of the action on the streets, but a friend of mine who was at the march was telling me about how striking the contrast was between the immigration reform rally and the tea partiers gathered outside the Capitol building to protest the health care vote. The biggest difference, of course, was the size of the two crowds, the 200,000 on the side of immigration reform vs. several hundred tea partiers. But that wasn't what struck her.
"In our rally, the crowd was incredibly diverse - plenty of Latinos, of course, but a really tremendous cross-section of nationalities and backgrounds and religious faiths. A lot of young people, but a good cross-section of older people. Many immigrants, naturally, but a large number of clearly non-immigrant supporters as well.
"Beyond the demographic diversity, thought, it was striking how upbeat the really was. People were determined to get immigration reform passed, and there was some disappointment that it hadn't yet been a priority, but the crowd was happy, proud to be there, and confident that the country would do right by them."
The contrast could not have been sharper with the tea partiers. She didn't see a single non-white face, and saw very few young people. But the spirit of the crowd more than the demographics was what was most striking: that sense of bitterness, fear, and hate that was evident in their faces and remarks as the pro-immigration crowd passed by them by.
I for one am not surprised at the reports surfacing over the last twenty four hours that there have been attacks, threats and vandalism aimed at Democrats who voted in favor of health care reform. As of this morning there are ten such reported cases, including one that suggested Congressmen (D-MI) should drown himself. Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) had the windows of her hometown office broken by some unidentified projectile. There has also been a report of an attack on a Congressman's family member that if accurate, would constitute a federal crime. Having witnessed Congressmen and Senators being spit upon and subject to racial and homosexual slurs by anti-government fanatics this past weekend, why would anyone be surprised by this latest display of incivility?
Shortly after the inauguration of Barack Obama the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that an increase in domestic anti-government violence was a distinct possibility. This report was the subject of much derision from the Right at the time but consider what has happened since then. Since the election of Barack Obama we have had a guy in Pittsburg kill policemen because he was angry that the government was now "Run by Jews" and that it would "take his guns away". We had a guy kill a doctor who performed abortions and then try to frame himself as a patriot in so doing. Sorry but murder is not patriotic. We had a murder at the Holocaust Museum by an individual who when captured said: "This is how you'll get my guns from me". Another anti-government zealot crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas as if that would in some way actually contribute to the abolition of the agency. In reality, all that this action accomplished was the killing of an innocent man. Only the Pentagon subway stop shooting can legitimately be classified as the work of a mentally incapacitated person, regardless of his anti-government rant. All summer long we had to watch the farcical spectacle of Tea Party patriots playing minuteman by bringing loaded weapons to rallies while holding signs that suggested it was time for a second American Revolution. There are many who will read this and try to make an argument that political violence is now somehow justified, alluding to some sort of Revolutionary War fantasy. There has been all manner of infatuation with ideas of an armed "citizens revolt"; a military coup, even talk of an attempt on the life of the President, all of it being nothing more than the pipe dream of people who have now become political dead enders. It is to be noted by all that these far right fanatics have been aided and abetted in their dangerous fantasies by the reckless rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the professional political entertainers on the far right who masquerade as legitimate political commentators.
The Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) has already issued a statement condemning violence on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is surely commendable as no informed observer of American politics would for a moment believe that the G.O.P. is in favor of such a thing. But I would also urge Congressman Boehner to direct his comments to some in his own party, like Michele Bachmann (R-MN) or those like her who have a history of incendiary anti-government rhetoric in their political track record. When an elected official engages in blatantly reckless and inflammatory behavior it only serves to stoke up the sentiments of those on the far right fringe and can serve, in their minds, as a "call to action." In his assessment of the Republican debacle that has arisen from the passage of health care reform, the veteran conservative commentator David Frum observed: "We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible... So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, its mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, its Waterloo all right: ours." The degree to which increasing levels of political violence detracts or derails the message of the Republican Party in the future is unknowable at this time. But for an organization that is polling the lowest favorability numbers in its history, it is just one more reason for people to disregard the G.O.P. message on Election Day and one more problem the Republican Party can do without.
There will be those on the Right who will issue the counter argument that all one need do is to look back to the sixties and you will find plenty of violence perpetrated by the left. Some will conjure up the various red scares of the past and say that there has been more than on instance in American history where Communists in labor unions and among university professors sought to overthrow or subvert the American way of life. But you can tally up all of the left wing violence in the history of this country and you won't put a dent in the death toll from the Oklahoma City Bombing, an act perpetrated by a violently anti-government fanatic. It is for that reason that it is now the patriotic duty of every American to stand up to the fanatics on the far right, be it at political rallies, on the streets, in the blogs, by calling in to talk radio, by text messaging the Glenn Beck show, etc., or by writing to the media organizations that sanction such programming and registering you opposition to this virulent rhetoric that only serves to fuel politically driven violence and intolerance. The next time some right wing crackpot tells you that he and his compatriots are going to "take back their country" ask them from whom, the people who voted in the majority for change. It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means.
In an interview following the attack on her office, Congresswoman Giffords said that America was a beacon around the world because we create change via the ballot box and not through political violence and intimidation. In thinking back upon much of the rhetoric from the right that has surrounded the advent of the Obama Administration, I can not help but to recall the warning that Sinclair Lewis made back in the 1930s: "If Fascism ever comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the flag and borne upon a crucifix". In spite of the fact that the country was in a far more perilous position then than it is now, Lewis' words were as relevant today as they were in the midst of the Great Depression and they should be on the minds of every true American patriot.
The conservative videographer who donned a pimp suit to embarrass the anti-poverty group ACORN was arrested in New Orleans, LA for allegedly conspiring to bug the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.
It's not clear why Landrieu was targeted, but many suspect that she was singled out because she played a pivotal role in advancing health care reform.
Filmmaker James O'Keefe and three other men have been charged with been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, according to Justin Elliott of TPM Muckraker. At RH Reality Check, Rachel Larris notes that, if convicted, the four could face up to 10 years in prison.
Like chum in the conservative shark tank
Landrieu, a conservative Democrat, negotiated an extra $100 million in Medicaid funds for Louisiana in exchange for allowing the health care bill to come to the senate floor. Accepting health care for the poor in the interest of health reform was like chum in the conservative shark tank.
Rush Limbaugh called her the most expensive prostitute of all time. "She may be easy, but she's not cheap," crowed Glenn Beck. It got so bad that Democrats call on Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was called upon to denounce the chorus of conservatives attacking his fellow Louisiana senator as a prostitute. (Correction: Vitter did not call Landrieu a prostitute.)
O'Keefe must have realized that an exposé of Mary Landrieu would be a hot commodity.
"This is Watergate meets YouTube," said Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief
Health care reform in limbo
The arrests could not have come at a better time for the Democrats. Health care reform is in limbo as congressional leaders plan their next move after losing their filibuster-proof majority. The bugging scandal is deflecting attention from tense internal negotiations.
Brian Beutler of TPMDC reports that the House Democrats are converging on a strategy to get reform done: The House will pass the Senate bill and the Senate will fix it through budget reconciliation.
The Republican counter-strategy
While the Democrats agonize over what to do next, that senate Republicans are honing strategies to thwart any Democratic attempt to pass health care reform through budget reconciliation, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The reconciliation process allows both sides to vote on unlimited number of amendments. GOP leadership is hinting that if Dems take the reconciliation route, they will be forced to vote on every politically embarrassing amendment the opposition can dream up.
The stakes are high. In the American Prospect, Paul Starr reminds progressives that there's till a lot worth fighting for, even without a public option. For all its faults, the Senate bill would still cover 30 million uninsured Americans, expand Medicaid, end discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and set up exchanges designed to keep rising insurance premiums in check.
A memo for reform
Finally, our sources tell us that Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly is making quite a stir on Capitol Hill with his memo advising the House Democratic caucus on the need to forge ahead with health care reform. In 1994, conservative commentator William Kristol wrote a health care memo to Republicans that became the backbone of their anti-reform strategy, even up to the present day. Benen hopes his memo will be a useful counterweight for Democrats. Benen warns the Democrats that it's far riskier to fail than to pass reform that doesn't please everyone.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
STATE BLOGS
