James Carville has been all over the news lashing out at Obama for not being strong enough in his response to the BP oil disaster. And with the news that the oil geyser will continue spewing its stuff until August, I don't blame the man. He is, after all, from Louisiana.
But for some reason I'm not convinced he's being completely sincere. In fact, Colombia held a presidential election yesterday and (this may seem somewhat bizarre if you don't know much about him) Carville actually helped the establishment candidate who wants to encourage "foreign investment," at a time when BP is considering offshore drilling in Colombia's waters.
A political guru, frequent CNN pundit and a personality who was featured in the well known documentary The War Room, Carville moves in powerful circles in the U.S. What's less commonly known, however, is that Carville is also a virtual kingmaker in Latin America --- indeed, his professional contacts have ranged from Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo to Brazil's Fernando Enrique Cardoso to many others.
This statement will come as no surprise to Open Left readers: People with power tend to use it for their own benefit. Of course, the explanations given for various actions are almost never: "We're doing because it's good for us and our friends." Instead, a variety of rationalizations are given which often seem to "make sense" if one doesn't ponder things for too long. How does this play out when considering policies affecting our youngest voting citizens, those aged 18, 19 and 20 years old?
Keep in mind that policy makers are, generally, old. The average U.S. Senator is 63. Representatives average a few years younger. Recent Presidents range from late 40s to about 70 with a mean in the late 50s.
These older (wiser?) men and women (a few) think it's just fine to send the youngest citizens to die in wars. In fact, 76.5 percent of U.S. casualties in Iraq have been soldiers younger than 30. The percentage for Afghanistan is 66.5. Rationalization: soldiers need to be in top physical condition, so the young must bear this burden.
But the greatest hypocrisy concerns 18-20 year olds. So far, 850 have died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this decade; 748 in Iraq and 102 in Afghanistan. Another 600 just turned 21 before they died in those countries. And yet, we prohibit 18-20 year olds from drinking alcohol. Why is this?
It's because old people would prefer that young people don't drink. Young people are, obviously, too irresponsible to drink. Give them an assault weapon or a tank but not a beer. It's a simple power play: we'd prefer you not drink so we won't let you and we'd prefer you go and die in wars but not us.
This is the point in the argument where the call for changing the drinking age is supposed to come but I'm not going to do that. Doesn't really matter that much. Instead, I'll call for this: change the age for combat to 40-65. Educate the young and let them start careers and families. Send the older citizens to die in war.
Added benefit: war policies might begin to change.
It's the depth of hypocrisy to blast people for using quick hits to call out other site members only to turn around and do the exact same thing he's taken others to task for. I mean, is it merely ego at play? Is Bowers the only one allowed to engage in snark? Or maybe he just needs to grow up and engage in honest discussion for a change.
They call for fiscal discipline after driving our debt through the roof.
They refuse to concede Al Franken's victory five months post-election after originally calling on Franken to concede a few days post-election (and after calling for Al Gore to put country first and concede early in 2000).
Dick Cheney says President Obama is making us weaker. And you KNOW that if anything tragic happened to Capt. Richard Phillips, Republicans would say, "Obama can't even defeat a couple pirates on a lifeboat, how will he keep us safe from terrorists?"
President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration officials said after Sunday’s rescue.
The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
But 11 days into the stand-off, the US said in a letter to China it was “very sorry” for the loss of a Chinese fighter pilot in a collision with a US spy plane, and for the US aircraft’s entering Chinese airspace without permission.
Good point, Oliver. Republicans love to project strength on military affairs, but time and time again they prove to be quite bad at the whole military thing. Republicans are kind of the Bad News Bears, but with missiles.
Especially as Republicans launch attacks on Obama and Bob Gates for re-prioritizing spending within the Defense Department and making initial attempts to combat the inefficiencies of the military-industrial complex, it would be good to get other examples of Republican incompetence on military affairs out on the table.
If you have some, please share below (with links, preferably).
Palin regaled the cheering crowd with a story about how she was reading her Starbucks mocha cup yesterday, which featured a quotation from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
"Now she said it, I didn't," Palin said of Albright. "She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"
I wasn't aware of that particular circle, but then I haven't studied Dante. Now what was it Palin said before...Oh, yes:
Once onstage, together with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Palin talked about what women expect from women leaders; how she took charge in Alaska during a political scandal that threatened to unseat the state's entire Republican power structure, and her feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. (She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's whining.)
Waxman's investigators said they took statements from six political appointees involved in the videoconference who maintained that Doan asked her employees how they could help Republicans in the upcoming elections.
This is an aspect of the Republican crusade against Congressional earmarks that needs more attention. As usual, Republican reforms only exist to benefit Republicans. Any actual good they might do is purely incidental.
BBQ smoke hangs thickly in the air, the rain is getting cooler than it usually is in the summertime, and the Mariners are securely in last place.
And it is also time to return to school. For the new voter about to enter (or return to) College, all the crazy living can make you forget about important things, like...oh, I don't know...maybe an election or two.
To make sure this does not happen I'm going to put College and Politics together to create this year's first...wait for it...synchronized Sarah Palin drinking game.
So start pairing up your shotglasses, find the Scotch tape, and when you get back I'll tell you how it works.
The most common perception of Christianity among young people (16-29) today is that it is "anti-homosexual," a view subscribed to by 91% of young non-Christians and 80% of young churchgoers, according to a recently-published book unChristian, from The Barna Group, the leading Christian polling organization. According to a "Barna Update" describing the book, unChristian paints a striking picture of American Christianity in crisis, suffering a major reversal of its positive image:
a decade ago the vast majority of Americans outside the Christian faith, including young people, felt favorably toward Christianity's role in society. Currently, however, just 16% of non-Christians in their late teens and twenties said they have a "good impression" of Christianity....
only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals. This means that today's young non-Christians are eight times less likely to experience positive associations toward evangelicals than were non-Christians of the Boomer generation (25%).
Add to that the facts that (a) the number of non-Christians is steadily rising (from 23% among those over 50 to 40% for those 16-29), (b) more Christians know non-Christians than ever before and (c) many Christians share those perceptions, and you have a major shift in attitudes underway that our political masters in Versailles have totally missed:
The 'UnChristian' Label
When young people were asked to identify their impressions of Christianity, one of the common themes was "Christianity is changed from what it used to be" and "Christianity in today's society no longer looks like Jesus." These comments were the most frequent unprompted images that young people called to mind, mentioned by one-quarter of both young non-Christians (23%) and born again Christians (22%).
[Author David] Kinnaman [president of The Barna Group] explained, "That's where the term 'unChristian' came from. Young people are very candid. In our interviews, we kept encountering young people - both those inside the church and outside of it - who said that something was broken in the present-day expression of Christianity. Their perceptions about Christianity were not always accurate, but what surprised me was not only the severity of their frustration with Christians, but also how frequently young born again Christians expressed some of the very same comments as young non-Christians."
Does it seem like there's a new Republican scandal in the news every single week? Well, that may be because there is.
That seems like an awful lot of corruption, scandal, hypocrisy, impropriety, and jail-worthy crime, huh? A lot of corruption. One might say an entire Culture of Corruption.
This is my first diary entry. I am a lifelong liberal/progressive democrat who has been reading, without comment, liberal/progressive blogs for several years, now. I feel compelled tonight to comment on the Democratic congress and the passage of the FISA "reform" bill.
I've been puzzling over what happened, why the Democrats would ever give this, or any, President, and this, or any, Attorney General the kind of power over all Americans that this bill represents. I've concluded that it means many things, but 3 that I think are most important:
1) They are the real hypocrites. The Republicans may be the moral/sexual hypocrites, but it is the Democrats who display astounding hypocrisy where it really matters - in the legislation they pass. They say they are against the war, but they pass the funding bill President Bush wanted. They say they are for improved gas mileage, but they pass an energy bill without stricter CAFE standards. And now they say they are against warrantless wiretapping but they pass an egregious FISA bill exactly as requested by an ever more imperial President. They are the worst hypocrites where it really matters, in making law.
2) They're as power mad as President Bush. It occurs to me that the Democrats fully expect to win both elective branches of government in 2008, and they want this nifty new, unconstitutional, power for themselves. And they are willing to subject the American people to this enormous loss of constitutional rights to get this power in the next election. (They'll do so without my vote!)
3) A final point, made more clear by the coincidence of this egregious legislation passing a Democratic congress even as the progressive web movement busily pats itself on the back at YKOS. Please explain to me again just how important the netroots are? We are still at war, we still have an outlaw administration, and now we've handed the crooks even more power at the expense of "the people".
Thank you for tolerating my rant. I think tonight is probably the lowest point for this country in my lifetime. And I'm 56 years old.
It's ironic Bush is recommending his staff read Bill Kristol's latest drivel, "Why Bush Will Be A Winner." Fortunately for Bush, he doesn't read. Otherwise he would know Kristol recently wrote this hate-filled screed:
For President Bush, loyalty is apparently a one-way street; decency is something he's for as long as he doesn't have to take any risks in its behalf; and courage--well, that's nowhere to be seen. Many of us used to respect President Bush.
Unfortunately for Bush, lots of adults do read. That is why old chickenhawks like Kristol lack credibility with the rest of us. It also explains why the purveyors of perpetual war are busy grooming a new crop of spokesmen in a futile effort to continue fooling the masses.
Like old wine in new bottles, these "fresh conservative voices" are being used to con people into swallowing the same War Party swill everyone rejected in 2006. It's an old trick that shows how desperate they are to push a poor product.
Here's the good news: We just found their Achilles Heel...
STATE BLOGS
