Twas the Newt before Christmas!

Citing the problem that Christmas has become a socialist holiday creating a "culture of dependency," for millions of kids, Newt Gingrich has taken over the role of Santa for this year and the foreseeable future.

Newt, shown in the second photograph in his thermal undergarment, and using intellect alone for buoyancy, floats above admiring elves explaining the new meaning of Christmas, self-sufficiency for the masses of poor children of the world.
In the last picture, again before donning the traditional Santa clothes, Newt explains to a democrat (without using any kind of lobbying) the faulty thinking in simply giving away toys without demanding anything in return.

"This is a fundamental problem" Newt told the elves, "when children grow up expecting something for nothing, and it contributes to the expectancy of a welfare state."

Instead of the usual handouts, Newt expects to deliver scaled-down gift giving for the children of the affluent, but rather than giveaways to the grubby little poor urchins, vouchers which would enable them to work as janitors and menials at schools and libraries, which next year could be redeemable for gifts.

Once that terrorism gets into your blood.....

The Republicans just can't quit. Now that they have a few concessions extracted from the Democrats over the past couple of years, its become automatic to try and try again.
Once the parties recognized that they were elected for the purpose of (other than getting rich and helping their rich friends) actually running the government. Now, not so much.
With the deadline of extending the payroll tax reduction into next year, the Republicans must have been giddy that they could now take advantage of another hostage situation. This time, they selected including a provision forcing Obama to decide on the construction of the Keystone pipeline within 60 days. (He wanted to postpone the decision until after the November election).
But Republicans simply can't help themselves anymore-any situation that requires a vote to continue the running of the government or helping the middle class is now an opportunity to extract some plum for themselves or their 1% supporters.
The idea that they should be working for the majority of US citizens has become so foreign to them it's ancient history. Stripped of their buzzwords: "job-killing" "job creators" etc., they got nothing to offer ordinary working Americans.
Just give them a gun, a deadline and a hostage and they'll be glad to show you who they're working for.

You gotta love Leviticus!

I ran across the following read:

REPOST....this is seriously too funny not to share...In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination .... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness -Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your adoring fan, James M Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

UPDATE: Campus police were feeding demonstrators!

Our zany friends at Fox offered a new take on the campus police spraying demonstrators with pepper spray at UC Davis (This from Talking Points Memo):

On Monday night, O’Reilly Factor host Bill O’Reilly and Fox News host Megyn Kelly sat down to discuss what really happened at UC Davis on Friday and whether campus police acted appropriately in showering a group of sitting students with pepper spray. Their conclusion? No big deal.

“Pepper spray, that just burns your eyes, right?” O’Reilly asked Kelly.

“Right,” Kelly said. “I mean, its like a derivative of actual pepper. It’s a food product, essentially.”

Exactly! Like jalapeno poppers, or queso dip. Delicious. In fact, pepper spray is about 1,000 times hotter than a jalapeno, Mother Jones reports. But Kelly, to her credit, said the pepper spraying looked like an “abrasive” and “intrusive” act.

Ok, maybe "force-feeding" the demonstrators... After all, it is a food product. Basically....

The threat of OWS

I've been wanting to write about the Occupy movement for a while, but have been watching it instead. I did not anticipate the tenacity of the movement or individuals, but I did anticipate the reaction of the conservatives.
Dirty Hippies, defecating on police cars. Sex in public! Public urination!
I'm shocked at the latest-pepper spraying in University of California at Davis, same for New York and Seattle.
Republicans are becoming scared because the movement is forcing people to think about things like income inequality and excessive corporate and wealth's influence on the government. Conservatives have been very successful at keeping attention on other matters, guns, gays, God, etc. in order to keep focus on anything other than how money has thoroughly corrupted government.
I'm having trouble, though, with how Republicans are trying to belittle those who are exercising their rights in a perfectly appropriate, non-violent manner.
The Newtster said last night, referring to the movement, that they should take a bath and get a job. Of course, Newt is at the very heart of the problem of corruption, and that bastion of integrity is a great focus on its effects. Apparently, he doesn't even realize that people may be upset that he collected $1.6 million from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while publicly criticizing other politicians who supported them. Oh, and when asked in the debate about taking $300,000 from them, he failed to mention that it was actually 5 or 6 times that.
Does he remind anyone else of the Pillsbury dough boy with a second rate intellect and a third rate moral compass? May I remind the reader that he was denouncing Bill Clinton from the House floor while having running around on his second wife with his future third? Maybe its just me.
Anyway, the following is an example of a portion of a dangerous communist manifesto. Anybody recognize it? Anybody up for exercising it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added).

Here's a link to a Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/uc-davis-pepper-spraying-raises-questions-about-role-of-police/2011/11/20/gIQAOr8dfN_story.html?hpid=z3

letter to C/J, re: Cal Thomas, Repub hack

To the Editor,

Why do you bother printing the opinions of Cal Thomas, Republican apologist? Friday’s entry is typical of his not-so-clever spin doctoring.

In describing the Herman Cain sexual harassment fiasco, Thomas states, “Many in the media wolf pack have already judged him guilty because he updated his initial statement denying the allegations.” Say what? Cain didn’t just “update” his statement, he changed his story repeatedly throughout the days following Politico’s story early this week. At first, a blanket denial. Later, something may have happened, but he just couldn’t remember details. Still later, he remembered something about it, but the settlement (he thought it was just an agreement) was small. But Cain isn’t a flip flopper, he’s an “updater.” (Attention Mitt, new defense headed your way!)

And who can’t love the intentional deceit contained several sentences later, spun into question form: “Is Cain, a relative media novice, expected to have instant and total recall of events that may or may not have happened more than 10 years ago?” How disingenuous is that? As Cal surely knows, Politico contacted Cain 10 days before they ran the story to get his side of it. When does a 10 days heads-up to formulate a response “instant recall?”

All this leads to Mr. Thomas’ conclusion, that its hard to get good candidates to run for office because they don’t want “every mistake or bad decision” aired by the media. I’ll bet the media doesn’t have every mistake or bad decision by Herman Cain reported yet, but the first three harassment claims seem to be a darn good start. And, if true, Mr. Thomas is probably correct that Herman Cain doesn’t want those bad decisions brought to the public view.

Cal’s kind of drivel would be laughable, if it weren’t for his overlooking the pain that his candidate probably caused these women. Mr. Thomas opens by citing the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, but ignores the most obvious difference: that it was between two consenting adults, not a corporate executive trying to prey on women subordinates.

Does Cal Thomas really deserve the editorial space you routinely give him?

"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake!"

If Mitt wins the Republican nomination for president, be prepared to hear the caption repetedly(ha). In a rare display of his true feelings, that was his reply in a debate to the charge that he had hired illegals to work on one of his properties.
When the Boston Globe ran an article about his lawn care service which was employing illegals, he went to them and said they had to quit the practice. Not because it was wrong, not because it was illegal. Rather, because he was running for office, for Pete's sake.
I think it was Michael Kinsley that said a gaffe is when a politician accidentally says what he's thinking.

Who's your daddy?????

This is too funny, turns out the only contributor to the PAC to defeat Gov. Beshear is David William's father in law. He had previously tried to keep his identity secret, but a judge barred the commercials because the donor names weren't disclosed.

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- The father-in-law of the Republican candidate for Kentucky governor is the only contributor to a political group currently facing a restraining order.Franklin County Judge Thomas Wingate issued the order restraining the group from running the ads because no individuals were listed, as is required under Kentucky law.Restoring America responded by submitting a new report to the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance.According to that report, GOP gubernatorial candidate David Williams' father-in-law, Terry Stephens, gave Restoring America $1,365,000 and is the only contributor.The group has spent all the money on ads criticizing Williams' opponent, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear.In a statement Stephens released Wednesday, he said, "My financial commitment to support the conservative values of Restoring America is in response to the devastation this country and state are experiencing under the leadership of liberals like Barack Obama."With Stephens' name now disclosed as Restoring America's sole contributor, the group has filed an emergency motion to dissolve the restraining order on its ads.Wingate will hold a hearing on the restraining order at 3:30 p.m. Thursday.

Read more: http://www.wlky.com/politics/29540316/detail.html#ixzz1bLHQBZju

Rand Paul: who's a kook now?

Thank God Kentucky elected this visionary! Rand Paul, our own conspiracy theorist senator, has uncovered a dark plot to use the UN to disarm us Americans!
Its all laid out in this Mother Jones article:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/united-nations-small-arms-treaty-rand-paul

9-21-11: overall, not so good.

By most measures, yesterday was not a good day.
First, Troy Davis was executed by the state of Georgia. Convicted of the murder of a sheriff, and no physical evidence other that eyewitness testimony which has since been largely recanted, the justice system failed him. I think it was Justice Scalia that opined that the innocent do not have a right not to be executed, only the right to a fair trial.
Second, and of lesser importance, REM announced it was breaking up after 30 years. My friend Tony Burunoff got me introduced to them about that time and I've enjoyed their music ever since.
The good to come of yesterday included getting my yellow '76 goldwing cured of her mystery ignition miss and timing reset. Once again, she purrs!

The New Yorker on Michele Bachmann

This is an interesting article on Michele Bachmann from a recent New Yorker Magazine issue:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza

Ten long pages but makes a fascinating read.

Barack Obama-Cave Man

Well, he's done it again! Faced with opposition from a radical right tea party that acted like the insane rogue elephant that didn't care if the economy tanked or not, Mr. Obama threw in the towel and gave the republicans everything they wanted without getting anything in return. He caved.
Maybe its the next step in the game for the shrewdest political thinker ever, a chess grand-master playing 5 steps ahead of everyone else, but I don't think so.
make no mistake, this was not a compromise because, once again, he got nothing in return.
At least in December he got an extension in unemployment benefits, but the republicans learned then that he could be controlled by extortion. And apparently he can.
here's Paul Krugman's take:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&hp

more thoughts on budget negotiations...

I’m not proud of my senator, Mitch McConnell and his cadre of Senate republicans who are holding the nation hostage in order to ensure that the balancing of the budget is done on the backs of the poor and what’s left of the middle class.
For eight years he sat silently as the last republican president ran up deficit spending by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and fighting two wars on credit.
When Obama took office, he was left the biggest fiscal mess since the great depression. Now, in order to further what he sees as the most important republican cause, making Obama a one term president, Mitch is complicit in a scheme to take the nation to the brink of another financial ruin. The last time, it was to allow the bankers to escape the catastrophe they created in order to create obscene salaries for the already wealthy.
This time, its to ensure failure on the part of the President, even at the cost of our country’s financial recovery. In order to cut the deficit, a combination of revenue increases and cost reductions will certainly have to take place.
Good faith negotiations are not taking place when one side announces that one of the two components, revenue increases, will not be discussed, and therefore, the arbitrary goal must be reached only through cuts in spending.
The standard argument is that you can’t increase taxes during a recession, and that those with wealth will create more opportunity (jobs) when they are allowed to accumulate additional wealth. That theory, however, just doesn’t make sense. If it were true, then where were the jobs they’ve been creating since the Bush tax cuts of 2002 and 2004? We, as a nation, can’t keep throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at the wealthy and hope that we get some of it back. What again, is the definition of insanity?
For the last twenty years, the middle class of our nation has seen decreasing pay while the richest one percent now “earn” 20 percent of its wealth. And I think I've read that the top 20% earn 50% of the wealth. Not since the roaring ‘20s has income disparity been as great.
And the solution? According to Mitch the gap must be made up by further pain to the poor and middle class.
Twenty years ago, Republicans could control the majority by making believe that they were the bastions of christian values and beliefs. Since that method started failing, they have become champions of fiscal responsibility. They can create a virtual reality that is obviously false to anyone who pays attention, but, what the hell, if enough people fall for it, it might as well be true.
People like the Koch brothers throw money at groups who in turn fund tea party types who will provide the energy to get more ideologues elected, and the process repeats itself. People don't want to be smart. They want to be told what they want to hear, to be reinforced in their beliefs, no matter how crazy those beliefs are.
If Sarah Palin wants to believe that Paul Revere rode to warn the British that we were not about to give up our arms, and that he used bells and whistles to do it, well, she's entitled to her own set of facts. The rest of us should just get used to it.
I just wonder what's going to happen when the middle class is gone and there is no one left to buy the products of the wealthy and the corporations. But I'm sure the republicans have already got that figured out.

About those budget negotiations...

Republicans prove every day that hypocrisy is not a fatal disease.
After 8 years of W's leadership in which 2 unfunded wars were fought, and allowing the complete collapse of the economy, they've realized that deficits are not a good thing and we are in a crisis.
The government will run out of money around the first of August unless the debt ceiling is raised and in the discussions to raise it, republicans are demanding massive cuts (trillions over the next ten years) but say that any tax increases are off the table. Allowing the federal government to default on its obligations is generally believed to be a very, very bad thing.
And republicans know that democrats are too responsible to allow default, and they will therefore use that good trait against them.
This is not negotiation, it is extortion. Taxes on the rich are lower than they have been in over 50 years, yet they should not be required to share the burden that the middle class have found imposed on them in the last few years.
It wouldn't be fair to ask some sacrifice of them, so we must punish the poorest of the population by cutting funding to what has become essential services.

and one of my favs, Paul Krugman writes:

Debt Limit Stakes

So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions: Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about

a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

And Republicans walked out.

Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.

What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency.

in the NYT today-zipper trouble, apology medley:

My Bad: A Political Medley

By THOMAS VINCIGUERRA

Published: June 8, 2011

• Recommend
• Twitter
• E-Mail
• Print
• Reprints
• Share

After a week of sometimes indignant public denials and insistence that he was the victim of an Internet hacker, a weeping and stammering ... [Representative Anthony D. Weiner] acknowledged at a news conference that he had sent the photo of himself in his underwear to ... a college student in Seattle.

— The Times, June 7

TODAY, I want to briefly address a private matter. (1) I’d like to take this time to clear up some of the questions that have been raised over the past 10 days or so, and take full responsibility for my actions. (2)

There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. (3) I was blind to how arrogant and self-centered I had become; I did not recognize that I thought mostly of myself. The worst part about this is I even tried not to become caught up in my own self-importance. Unfortunately, the urge to believe in it was stronger than the power to fight it. (4) I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. (5)

I made a serious mistake. (6) I haven’t told the truth, and I’ve done things I deeply regret. (7) I’ve been unfaithful to my wife. (8) That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it. (9) This is no time for evasions, denials or alibis. I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions. (10)

I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. (11) To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry. (12)I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. (13)

As an elected official, I fully realize that my life is open for public criticism and scrutiny, and I take full responsibility for the mistake in judgment I made in attempting to handle this matter myself. (14) Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. (15)

I’ve let down a lot of people. That’s the bottom line. And I let them down and in every instance I would ask their forgiveness. Forgiveness is not an immediate process, it is in fact a process that takes time and I’ll be in that process for quite some weeks and months and I suspect years ahead. (16) I do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. (17) I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God. Somebody once said that when we’re young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy. There’s something to that, I think. (18)

As we go through the process of working through this there are going to be some hard decisions to be made, to be dealt with. (19) I owe a humble thank you to the many people who helped to get me here, and who helped me serve effectively. (20) I am very proud of the things we have accomplished during my administration. (21)

But I guess where I’m trying to go with this is there are moral absolutes and that God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself, and there are consequences if you breach that. This press conference is a consequence. (22) I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time. While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not. (23)

Thank you for watching. And good night. (24)

•

(1) Eliot Spitzer, March 10, 2008.

(2) Anthony D. Weiner, June 6, 2011.

(3) Newt Gingrich, March 8, 2011.

(4) John Ensign, May 2, 2011.

(5) Bill Clinton, Aug. 17, 1998.

(6) Gary Hart, Sept. 8, 1987.

(7) Mr. Weiner.

(8) Mark Sanford, June 24, 2009.

(9) Larry Craig, Aug. 28, 2007.

(10) Jesse Jackson, Jan. 18, 2001.

(11) Mr. Clinton.

(12) John Edwards, Jan. 21, 2010.

(13) Christopher Lee, Feb. 9, 2011.

(14) Mr. Craig.

(15) Mr. Spitzer, March 12, 2008.

(16) Mr. Sanford.

(17) James E. McGreevey, Aug. 12, 2004.

(18) Mr. Gingrich.

(19) Mr. Sanford.

(20) Mr. Ensign.

(21) Mr. McGreevey.

(22) Mr. Sanford.

(23) Arnold Schwarzenegger, May 17, 2011.

(24) Mr. Clinton.

Thomas Vinciguerra is the editor of the forthcoming “Backward Ran Sentences: The Best of Wolcott Gibbs from The New Yorker.”

Colbert on Rand Paul

Stephen Colbert had a segment on Rand Paul and terrorism, here is a link to the clip:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/colbert-by-rand-pauls-own-standards-hes-a-terrorist-video.php?ref=fpb

It amazes me that these tea partiers (Paul, Bachmann, Palin) can say pretty much anything and not be held to a consistency standard that other pols are held to.
And speaking of Rand Paul, I do approve of the fact that he recently questioned the reenactment of the Patriot Act without any Senate discussion. But even a broken clock is right twice a day......

Why family needs to be taken in small doses:

I haven't posted in a few weeks and wanted to commit something to print. The following is a true story about a recent family event which may help to explain my occasional insanity:

My brother-in-law, Dan is from the Murray, Ky. area. When my sister Jo and Dan lived in Hazel, near Murray, Jo owned a retail store named "Miss Bradies." Dan was an auctioneer.
A man from Murray lives at my sister, Sue's and Mom's assisted living place, and they talked.
Turns out, the guy had a grandfather who's estate was auctioned off years ago, and he thought Dan auctioned the stuff and he wanted g-dad's law books and thought Dan had bought them. and he'd like to see/meet Dan.
Dan, when told the story, said he knew the guy's family, but wasn't the auctioneer. Doesn't have the books.
OK? goofy, homey story totally debunked, right?
Wrong. Not so fast, at least not in my family. The story sprouted huge legs, took off and has resisted every attempt to discredit it. In my family, it'll be a legend in about 6 more months. It drives me crazy, and at a dinner last week, it had a new wrinkle:
Everyone was late and mom had already gone back into this small dining room at the end of a hall. I seated mom and asked Sue to stay with her and I'd wait at the front door and show the guests where to go.
after a minute Sue comes up behind me.
she left mom because she wanted Dan, who was late already, to meet that guy who was then in the adjacent big dining room.
And she explained to me that Dan had bought some of his granddad's books AND JO HAD SOLD SOME OF THE AUCTION STUFF AT HER STORE!!!!!!!
a brand new twist to a family folklore story!!
She got mad at me when I reminded her that the underlying story, that Dan was the auctioneer, was false, and that the new variation had to also be false. But sister Sue would have none of this blasphemy, she has her story. To give a new reason for introducing them she says, "Well, they're both from western Kentucky!" I told her yes, but so are 100,000 other people.
Dan came in, she led him over to the guy and Dan was captured for about 15 additional minutes while 7 people waited to order dinner.
And worst of all, I'm the only person that thought the entire exercise was crazy.

NEWT'S IN!!!!!!!

The Newt announced today that he's in the race for the Republican nomination for 2012!
and the SOB couldn't even be honest in his release. Saying, "I have been humbled by all the encouragement you have given me to run."
Newt has not been humbled by anything. Ever.
He is a big, fat, lying multiple adulterer sack o' s**t.
If more evidence is needed, please check previous posts.
this will be interesting, tho, as he explains why he can't keep his pants on. Oh, I mean "couldn't keep his pants on." I'm sure thats all in the past.

Torture advocates: "In your face, LIBERALS..."

There was already a letter to the editor in today's Courier declaring that it was torture that got us bin Laden and generally proclaiming the value of torture and chastising liberals for being too week-kneed to endorse it.
All of this without any proof whatsoever that the information that set the wheels in motion came about because of torture. And actually, most, if not all sources say that the info was obtained from traditional, non-enhanced interrogation techniques.
I believe that it is safe to say that torture is generally believed to be immoral, illegal and ineffective. But it does seem to maintain a loyal fan base.
At the risk of sounding unamerican, I just can't believe how blood-thirsty we are.
Eagerly endorsing the intentional infliction of pain on our enemies and fist-pumpingly proud over the death of a very evil man.
Update: here's the story from the NYT:

http//www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?hp

Here's a link to a very funny article from Salon by Alex Pareene:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/03/osama_reactions_guide

Oh, yeah? what about his elementary grades?

Donald Trump's not gonna like this. Can anyone say, "photoshop?"
The birthers are going nuts.

Is The Donald in?

I really hope that Donald Trump seeks the republican nomination for president.
His serious credentials plus name and hair recognition make him an instant front-runner.
He recently wrote a letter to the New York Times in response to an article that Gail Collins wrote about his newfound birtherism.
The letter was funny enough with its numerous grammatical errors, but I just ran across this video that highlights it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49U-nqMPyY&feature=player_embedded

while your there, check out some of the other dummy videos on the right (of course)!

Donald Trump. Newt Gingrich. Michele Bachman. and maybe Sarah Palin. This should be fun.

Briefly, back to the Newtster!!

I love this guy as much as my own senators, Randroid Paul and Mitch "Turtle Man" McConnell. Newt has now rewritten his own history on his government shutdown in 1995. In 1996, he said it was a mistake. Now, he views it in heroic proportions.
Here's the story from Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/newt-gingrichs-shutdown-journey-from-clearly-wrong-to-historic-success.php?ref=fpb

Its hard to see who will make the best GOP candidate among this rich field.

Two phrases I'd love to never hear again......

A good part of what's wrong with network news can be summarized in two words: "royal wedding."
Some time ago Brian Williams opened a story with a line that went something like, "Americans are all fascinated with the upcoming royal wedding...." Well, maybe NBC is, but I'm sure a lot of us don't really give a rat's behind about it. But it doesn't matter because as long as you tell viewers that they are, maybe they will be. Infotainment is certainly easier to cover than real news. Especially real news that your owner would rather you not cover, like the fact that GE (which owns NBC), despite making some $15 Billion last year didn't pay any US taxes! NBC News opted not to cover that story, and the fact that they didn't made it to the Washington Post in this story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/on-nbc-the-missing-story-about-parent-company-general-electric/2011/03/29/AFpRYJyB_story.html?hpid=z4

Locally, we have two words that our network affiliates love to cover, "Karen Sypher." Last night there was "breaking news" about where, and when Karen Sypher was to report to prison. I actually felt sorry for the "breaking news" reporter after he said for the third time she was to report next Tuesday to a facility in Florida. I kid you not, at least three times.
I'm guessing they love the story because of the voyeur aspect to it. And I'm beginning to think that the real victim of this story is not Rick Pitino, and its not Karen Sypher. Its the poor viewer who tunes into the local news for, well, news. Karen Sypher filing a new appeal is not news, and giving a television interview is not news.
But its what passes for news these days. Sad.

On unfair treatment

There was a story a week or so ago about Sarah Palin which I wanted to mention at the time, but didn't. As you may recall, she raised a minor stink earlier this year after the Tucson shootings and despite her previous references such as "lock and load" and using crosshairs to target political foes, didn't understand why people would think she might share some responsibility for the shooting of political (and other) figures.
And as previously reported, she was able to ascertain the real victim, herself, who had been blood libeled by the media. She pointed out that shooters bear the real responsibility for their actions and anyone who didn't understand that was a complete idiot.
Weeks later, when asked to comment on the legislative situation in Wisconsin, she said that the pro-union people should tone down their rhetoric because they would be responsible if someone got hurt. No inconsistency here.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon has a very illuminating story of similar cluelessness from those bastions of Ayn Randian beliefs, those poor Koch brothers, who feel like they have been so unfairly victimized because of their philosophy. It examines this crazy-ass, despite all evidence to the contrary, idea that Obama is an uberliberal that hates business. Its a good read.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/27/koch

Ladies and Gentlemen, the man who would be king

Well, President, anyway....
It was so interesting yet sad to watch John McCain shed his integrity bit by bit during the last presidential election cycle in an effort to pick up votes.
Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, has never been encumbered by integrity so its interesting and amusing to watch him say ANYTHING that he thinks might pick up a vote. Witnesseth his contradictions on American intervention in Libya via Talking Points Memo:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/newt-gingrichs-libya-shift-issue-by-issue.php

Corporations are so mistreated!

Below is a story from this morning's NYT about the governor of Maine attempting to remove some murals in the lobby of the Department of Labor. The paintings depict workers of various backgrounds engaging in their respective workings.
Conservatives want them removed because there are no pictures of, well, I guess managers, and therefore, they lack balance in their presentations.
Seriously.
Maybe they should hang portraits of some Fox News pundits.
Or, better still, what about some paintings of 1800 England during the industrial revolution where small children were used to remove objects which became stuck in huge equipment because adults were too large for the task. A picture of a 8 year old boy pulling back a bleeding stump where his arm used to be would give some balance. Too bad labor unions helped to end that practice.
Or, how about a picture of some thugs hired by Henry Ford beating factory workers at Ford's Detroit River Rouge plant in the 1930's when the workers tried to unionize?
Maybe a picture of greedy Wall Street bankers selling collateralized debt obligations to an unsuspecting public, helping to bring down the economy in 2008?
There are so many worthy counterbalances to those greedy people trying to earn an honest living.
Surely big business should be able to control not only the Department of Labor, but the images contained there as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/us/24lepage.html?emc=eta1

Are Republicans the only ones brave enough to stand up for these mistreated corporations?

here's an updated story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/24/maine-governors-decision-remove-labor-mural-letter_n_840282.html

It all depends on a collective short memory...

Every time I think Mitch McConnell is the king of hypocrisy, Newt Gingrich shows up to challenge the crown. Last week, with his pants on, the Newtster lambasted Obama for filling out his NCAA brackets instead of leading our country.
What you may or may not remember is that our previous president (for better or for worse) was on vacation more than any president before him. He was at his "ranch"* in Crawford when the FBI came by to give him the CIA assessment that bin Laden was "determined to strike the U.S." and with his smirky frat boy manner, sent the man away after saying, "you can go now, you've covered your ass." (Because that's what true leadership is all about, covering your ass).
I never heard a peep out of Republicans during the 8 years of absentee leadership.
But you let one scary Negro Kenyan Muslim take five minutes to fill out a bracket and we could have been hit by them Rooskies, or something. Geeeeze!

*( I put ranch in quotation marks because its the only ranch I've heard of without horses. Former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, once said in an interview that when "W" visited him in Mexico, he had a surprise horseback ride lined up. When Fox brought out the horse for W, he said there was the unmistakable look of fear in Georgie's eyes, and the ride was canceled. I know of no reason for Mr. Fox to lie about the story.)

Every time the Star Spangled Banner plays

his pants fall off!
I hope everyone had an opportunity to see or hear Newt Gingrich explaining on the Preachy Channel why he has had repeated affairs. Turns out, its because he loves his country so much!

"There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn't trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness. Not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness."

For those who don't remember, Newt was pressing for Bill Clinton's impeachment for lying about having an affair while Newt was having an affair. I'm just guessing that Clinton's crime was having an affair which wasn't caused by his "passion" for his country.

We the sheeple......

Just a few reflections on the top stories in my local Courier-Journal today:
But first, a comment on the pictures which cover the top stories on pages 1-3. The first picture is of our own Rand Paul, further down the page are pictures of David Williams and Gov. Steve Beshear.
On page two is a picture of Senator Jim DeMint, and page 3 contains pictures of a menacing Representative Peter King of New York and clueless demagogue Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Think about it, the top national stories are generated by three crazy tea baggers and a bigot. Locally, we're just petty.
The Rand Paul story is about how he and other tea bagger senators are threatening to block any legislation which does not address the alleged "debt crisis." DeMint's picture is from the same article.
The Williams\Beshear article is about state Senate leader David Williams being offended by a statement purportedly made by Beshear calling him and others "fat guys." Beshear denies it.
Turning to page three we have the phony hearings on "radicalized Islam" being led by King, who's picture shows him giving that crazed laser stare that looks, well, radicalized.
Then the final article on page three is the one of Wisconsin Governor Walker and his success in killing the public unions (that didn't support him in the election cycle-the ones that did were exempted).
I bring this up because three of the "stories" are bogus and the third is about pettiness. Well, other than the tsunami, that's today's news.
The debt crisis simply isn't a crisis. Its a long term problem which must be addressed, but it simply isn't a crisis, no matter how vehemently the tea partiers argue otherwise.
Paul Krugman speaks of the nuttiness today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&hp

The hearing on UnAmerican activities, oops, I mean Islamic radicalization, is chaired by Peter King, a strong supporter of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a radicalized group which terrorized Great Britain in the '80 and '90s. Mr. King has denied that the hearings are an effort to paint Muslims with a broad stroke as just another word for "terrorists," and he said in a statement on Wednesday that you got to look where terrorism comes from, and it always comes from radicalized Muslims. On Thursday, the FBI arrested the guy accused of planting a bomb in Seattle on a Martin Luther King day parade route. He was a neo-nazi, and I didn't see a turban on his arrest photograph.
Oh, and in support of the hearings, a fellow Republican Representative said he didn't see a problem with the hearings because "no one objected when they had hearings on the KKK."
I won't go into the Wisconsin story much as I have written about it before. Just to remark that the union busting efforts were not about a budget "crisis" as the unions had already acceded to the governor's demands for concessions before any of this started.
In sum, the nation's conversation has been shoved so far to the right that people are no longer able to ascertain what is a crisis and what isn't. Republicans who voted for two unfunded wars, massive tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate subsidies over the last two terms of George W. Bush and passively watched a budget surplus turn into substantial deficits have had a vision on the road to Damascus and are suddenly alarmed at the "crisis" before us. And it has nothing to do with that scary black Kenyan Muslim in the White House.
Sixty days ago they bullied the spineless Democrats to support the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy costing the treasury $700 billion over the next ten years, and now suddenly, the budget is in a crisis mode.
Thank God the Courier realizes there are two sides to every story!

Public v. Private employees

I'm truly fascinated with the new war on unions and the middle class being waged by the tea partiers. First, I must say I agree that some localities have probably made it too easy for police types to take retirement with full benefits and health care after 20 years, then allow the person to retire and take a similar job and work toward a second retirement while receiving the first.
Having said that, I must note that in Wisconsin, the police and fire unions are exempted from the governor 's plan, so the war against unions is against teachers and other state employees.
After our local paper, the Courier Journal, published a letter and an op-ed piece last week, both of which stated as fact that public employees earn more than their private counterparts, I wrote the paper asking whether they believed those statements were true. (I blogged about this new tea party meme last November when I first saw the assertion, I think under the caption "Why are the public employees ripping us off?).
But of course, the newspaper can no longer be expected to give us facts because the new mission is to report both sides of every story (sometimes the truth and the lie, without telling us which is which, otherwise, they could be accused of taking sides).
I happen to believe what has happened over the years is that public employees made LESS in salary than their private counterparts (with similar educational levels) and their pensions fairly mirrored those of private 401K's. Private workers were happy with this arrangement until their 401k's tanked and pensions didn't. Then, once they became infected with tea partyism, they saw that someone was getting something they weren't and it made them unhappy.
Now, some people would look at why the 401k's tanked and get mad at Wall Street, but in tea partyland they got mad at other middle-classers instead! And, once again, its worked out well for the Republicans, once you are able to overlook the complete insanity of it all.
Jon Stewart had a bit on the Fox News pundits' total hypocrisy of it all when compared to their position of the banker's bonuses during the financial bailout. With bankers, we need to respect the sanctity of their contracts (they were promised the bonuses), but with public workers, not so much.
Here's a link to Jon Stewart via Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/jon-stewart-teachers-walls-street-fox_n_831243.html
Here are links to a couple of articles about comparisons between public and private workers, with thanks to the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman and the NYT:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/the-truth-about-pensions/?emc=eta1
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/a-clarification-on-public-workers/?emc=eta1

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/06/us/public-private-employees.html?hp

One thing that you have to admire is the ability of the Republican Party to turn one section of the middle class against another, when neither had anything to do with the financial meltdown. Why middle class people are content to attack each other instead of going after the real perpetrators of our problems is totally beyond me.
My hat is off to those workers in Wisconsin who are fighting back against this nonsense, and we should all be supporting them.

somewhere, rational people!

Having watched the mini-revolution in Egypt and nearby nations, I'm left with a few thoughts, one of which is envy. Apparently, these people, using massive non-violent demonstrations, have brought down the status quo.
Meanwhile, over here, the assault on the poor and the middle class continues, aided largely by the poor and middle class. Two years after the financial meltdown (where the Wall Street Banks, gambling with other people's money had to be bailed out by the taxpayers) the Republicans and tea partiers have got their base convinced that the real problem is not huge unemployment, its deficit spending. The same Republicans that quietly allowed the national debt to balloon under "W" in order to borrow to give tax breaks to the wealthy, fight two unfunded wars and create an unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan, are now in a full blown panic over the deficit.
And the solution? More war on the middle class!
Wall Street is back to making money and banker's billions in bonuses are no longer on the front burner, so its time to attack unions for trying to help the middle class.
In Wisconsin, the governor is trying to break the public employee unions over a "debt crisis" that many believe is simply made up.
I wrote some time ago about this new mantra that government workers are earning way more than their private counterparts, and its now rooted deeply into the Republican theory of governance.
Two months ago, the Republicans blocked O'Bama's attempt to let the "W" tax reductions for the rich expire, costing the Treasury $700 billion over the next ten years. Now they're in a total hissy fit because of the shortfall and have targeted the poor and middle class to make up the difference.
Think about it: The Republican meme in December against letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire was, "now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone!" but a couple of months later its time to cut salaries and negotiation power of the middle class and poor? Raising taxes on the rich or cutting salaries of government workers are both ways to either cut costs or raise revenue, so why would we want to place the burden on the class less able to bear it? Why the f**k can't the people of this country see what the conservatives are up to?
Wake up, people! The policies of the Democrats DID NOT get us into this mess, and this total assault on the middle class and unions WON'T get us out of it.
Taxes on the rich have not been lower in over 50 years, yet its still not enough.
The sight of those Egyptians out in the streets protesting their oppression was impressive. Here, though, our oppressors have us convinced that our middle class is making too much money, and its more likely to see the tea baggers out in the street insisting that the poor and middle class get less.

here's Paul Krugman's take from today's NYT:

www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&hp

Up really is down!

I wrote some time ago about the bottom 50% of the population being below average. Now a few reflections on what's below that.
AM talk radio was the rage of conservatives years ago, and I think its being supplanted by the internet. Its hard to argue with it, it continually blasts out its racist, bigoted vitriol on a daily basis to those who need constant reassurance that their closed minds are the way to go. However, now many have discovered the same type of outright bias can be transmitted among a group by way of the "forwarded message," a great alternative to, you know, actual thinking.
Its a way of passively entering the internet age without all the troubling research and fact finding that consumes those with a genuine thirst for knowledge- just wait and Bubba will send you your marching orders, via forwarded email.
I have a relative who's been captured by it, and its not a pretty thing to watch. Here's my theory on it:

Some Conservatives are fueling one or more "think tanks" who create the messages, sometimes original and sometimes reworking old jokes or stories. If its an old joke, they will take a main character from the joke and rewrite it to become a Democratic leader.
For example, there's this joke that originally went like this:

A guy is on an ocean cruise, boat sinks and he washes up on a deserted island only to find a dog and a female sheep there. The three become great friends and spend every evening sitting together watching the sunset over the harbor. One day, the guy is horny and starts to slip his arm around the sheep in an affectionate manner. The dog sees it and goes off, barking and acting like he's going to bite the guy until the guy stops.
One day a beautiful woman washes ashore in very bad shape. The guy nurses her back to health and she becomes a valued member of their group. One evening, while watching the sunset, she softly whispers in his ear, "You have done so much for me, I'd like to thank you somehow for all you've done. I'd do anything, and I mean anything to make you happy." He thinks about it for a minute and says, "How about taking the dog for a long walk."

So one day I get this forwarded message in my email, and its the same joke, except instead of a beautiful woman, I'll be damned if its not Nancy Pelosi! Well, that pretty much destroys the joke, since instead of some beautiful woman suggesting sex, its that crusty old Pelosi lady. The funniness of the joke hinged on the guy passing up a beautiful women for a sheep, for crying out loud! But for a mindless bottom 20er, any swipe at a democrat will do.
This other forwarded phenomenon is the perverted parable, witnesseth!:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support government programs. In other words, redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based upon this, she had participated in, and the cage and had the occasional chat with her professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored a selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professor to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had an "a" average and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't have many college friends because she spent all of her time studying. Her father listened and then asked, how is your friend Audrey doing? She replied, Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always go into all the parties have lots of times, she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over. Her wise father asked his daughter, why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way, you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of your GPA.
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, fired back. "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time and hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward hers. She played while I worked my tail off!"
Her father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to my side of the fence."

What I love about this fable is that it is a false equivilancy on top of a false premise. Taxing the rich to help the poor is not the same thing as educational socialism. Is the story saying that the poor are poor because they choose to be, that they party and play around constantly while the rich are serious minded workers, squirrels who save their acorns for hard times? Why, we sure wouldn't want to reward bad behavior by giving the poor something, right? The moral of the story is that greed is the right thing to do.
But my favorite thing about the parable is that the entire premise of the story is a false but widely circulated belief-That the rich are constantly being bled to redistribute their hard-earned wealth to the unworthy poor, when in reality, the redistribution of wealth is going the other way, from the bottom to the top! Wealth in this country is increasingly becoming concentrated at the top. The richest 1% of the population now "earn" 20% of all money earned, the greatest disparity since the gilded age of the 1920's. Whoever wrote that mind-boggling ignorant story has got to be laughing his/her ass off every time some idiot sees it and hits the "forward to all" button.

One of the message forwarders includes the following unattributed quote on all of his recirculated emails, "When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both." It has become his tag-line.

I can remember the day when helping the poor was generally believed to be a virtue and not a vice. But in the new Republican age, up is now down.

In fact, in the new testament, (1 Corinthians 13:13) the apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians, "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." The greatest of human virtues is CHARITY??? Sorry Paul, don't you know the poor don't even bother coming to class?

I bring all of this up because somehow we have arrived at a point where our conservative overlords have hijacked the discourse and turned the good into the bad. Instead of AM radio being the sole source of this crazy indoctrination/reinforcement of kooky ideas of the bottom 20%, I suspect that cynical people are hired to rewrite jokes and parables into anti-Christian themes, labeling them as the new "good" and sending them out to the faithful, knowing the message will be mindlessly forwarded to each other over and over. And the best I can tell, there is no counterpart to this phenomenon on the left, thankfully.

And instead of these bottom 20ers being taught to think for themselves (a possibility given to them by the internet) these recycled jokes and stories are just being used to validate their racial, bigoted, jingoistic and paranoid beliefs. People who are so intellectually incurious it boggles the mind.

And it drives me crazy.

She wouldn't recognize irony if it hit her in the face

I was ready to let this go, but its just too rich to ignore. Poor, beat upon Sarah Palin has now released a video comparing the media's questioning of herself to the persecution of the Jews, using the term, "blood libel."
Of course, it had to be released from the cocoon of her Facebook page, because God knows you wouldn't want to stand up and answer questions like in a news conference. Better to let your ghost-writer come up with a "poor me" speech to post somewhere that can't be questioned, lest someone be reminded that you're an opportunistic moron.
But the sweetest part is found here, from the AP release, "In a video posted to her Facebook page, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate accused the U.S. media of inciting hatred and violence after the shooting that gravely wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Palin has been criticized for marking Giffords' district with cross hairs during last fall's campaign. "But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," she said.
Except that, as I pointed out days ago, it was Ms. Gaffords (a Jew, by the way), that denounced the crosshairs LAST YEAR! As cited previously:

Giffords herself talked about this in a March, 2010 interview, saying that "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way she has it is depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."

Now I'm not saying, nor have I said, that the Tea Partiers were directly responsible for the massacre. But we have a bright, dedicated U.S. Representative who serves out full terms laying in a hospital bed with a gunshot wound to her head, but, as it turns out, Sarah Palin is the real victim of this tragedy.
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.

Please, someone come to their rescue.....

Well, I figured the Palin juggernaut would try and find solace somewhere in the safe harbor of Foxworld, and she did. She sent an email to Glenn Beck complaining about how she was unfairly implicated in the Tucson mess by the liberal press.
This is so funny for a couple of reasons: First, like most conservative commentators, she can spew out hatred in huge proportions, but when comes to being called on it, she can turn from Momma Grizzly to victimized child in a nanosecond. It is absolutely hilarious how someone soooooo callous can be sooooo thin-skinned when scrutinized.
And, secondly, look who she runs to: Glenn Beck, also unfairly blamed by liberals for instigating violence. Professor Beck would never do something like that, he's a man of God!
Except, maybe, when he said, "It took me about a year to start hating 9-11 victims' families..." Because sometimes God WANTS us to hate others.
Or how about, "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself..." Turns out that the "thou shalt not kill" commandment had an asterisk next to it that was so small that only the eyes of the the gifted Professor could see it. And, to the glory of God, Beck exploited it.
And how about last year when a Byron Williams, after absorbing hours of "education" from the devout and scholarly Mr. Beck, set out to kill employees of the Tides Foundation and ACLU until pulled over by members of the Oakland Police. A shootout ensued and Mr. Williams' crusade was cut short. Mr. Beck had assailed the Tides Foundation some 29 times in 6 months before Mr. Williams set out on his holy mission.
And who can forget the benevolent Mr. Beck teaching his audience about the exploits of George Soros, who Beck claimed had helped the Nazi's send Jews to death camps.
No, these are good people, Ms. Palin and Mr. Beck. Fine people. People should stop being mean to them.
They're the true victims of the Tucson shooting. In their minds, anyway. What a pair of hypocrites.

Tea Party Nuttiness Comes to Roost

Everyone in Washington better get out of the way of the stampede of Republicans as they try and back up from their tough-talk tea party rhetoric they were all spewing of late.
And all because some nut job decided to follow the advice of our political leaders and apply some "second amendment remedy" to the Democratic representative, Gabrielle Giffords and others in Arizona.
We haven't heard from Sharon Angle yet as to whether she approves of the shooter's initiative in the matter.
"Don't Retreat, Reload" Sarah Palin has already, through a spokesperson, started the not so difficult task of rewriting history in an effort to distance herself from the fray. That map on her web site which showed crosshairs over Giffords district has already been taken down, and the spokesperson has said that they were actually "surveyor marks," apparently forgetting that Sara had previously referred to the persons targeted as "bulls' eyes."
Giffords herself talked about this in a March, 2010 interview, saying that "We're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is that the way she has it is depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize there's consequences to that action."
Or maybe not.
The Republican candidate for New York governor angrily threatened to "take someone out" during the campaign.
And let's not forget those tea party t-shirts with that catchy phrase about the tree of liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Texas governor Rick Perry, who claims to have gallantly shot an unarmed coyote last year talked of secession from the U.S., and we all know how that turned out the last time. (oops, we don't-in the revisionist history book it turns out it WAS NOT, repeat WAS NOT about slavery, rather it was all about states' rights, a recurring tea party theme).
I'll bet Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are glad it happened over the weekend so that their research teams can find out if the shooter ever checked out a Michael Moore movie thereby proving that Jared Loughner is a secret Librul and relieving them of any responsibility for their daily hate speech.
The Republican party loved stoking the fire of the tea baggers during the last election and it appears that a few of the Tea Party Army are awaiting further marching orders.
And while its usually the Democrats who cower at every turn, it is refreshing to see the 'Pubs squirming while trying to explain what they were, and weren't talking about last year.
Any ideas, Mama Grizzly?