Quote of the Day

By Creature

"So what I'm saying here is that it's very disappointing, to put it as mildly as possible, that it took Baucus more than a year to formulate a plan that amounts to capitulating to every Republican demand, and then adding a heaping pile of political suicide on top of it. Thanks, Max! Great plan. Glad we waited. Now STFU." -- David Waldman on Senator Baucus's newly unveiled health-care reform plan.

Happy Labor Day!

By J. Thomas Duffy

Happy First-Monday-In-September, otherwise known as Labor Day!



It is a Federal Holiday today, and Wikipedia tells us:

The holiday originated in Canada out of labor disputes ("Nine-Hour Movement") first in Hamilton, then in Toronto, Canada in the 1870s, which resulted in a Trade Union Act which legalized and protected union activity in 1872 in Canada. The parades held in support of the Nine-Hour Movement and the printers' strike led to an annual celebration in Canada. In 1882, American labor leader Peter J. McGuire witnessed one of these labor festivals in Toronto. Inspired from Canadian events in Toronto, he returned to New York and organized the first American "labor day" on September 5 of the same year.[citation needed]

The first Labor Day in the United States was celebrated on September 5, 1882 in New York City.[1] In the aftermath of the deaths of a number of workers at the hands of the US military and US Marshals during the 1894 Pullman Strike, President Grover Cleveland put reconciliation with Labor as a top political priority. Fearing further conflict, legislation making Labor Day a national holiday was rushed through Congress unanimously and signed into law a mere six days after the end of the strike.[2] Cleveland was also concerned that aligning a US labor holiday with existing international May Day celebrations would stir up negative emotions linked to the Haymarket Affair.[3] All 50 U.S. states have made Labor Day a state holiday.

Wow!

A president who makes something a "top political priority" and then gets it done -- imagine that!

Today is also, unofficially, the demarcation point, signaling the end of summer (you can put away those white pants now).

So, for our contribution, we'll give you what became a jazz standard, recorded by just about everybody (including Bobby Darin).

"Work Song," written by Nat Adderley (here's an interview with Nat), more associated with his brother, Julian "Cannonball" Adderley (and, sometimes given the title "The Chain Gang Song").

At least one line of the lyrics is still, unfortunately, on-the-money for today:

Been workin' and workin', and still got so terribly far to go ...

Whatever you do today, however you celebrate it, Happy Labor Day!

Cannonball Adderley Sextet- Work Song (from Oscar Brown Jr's Jazz Scene, with Nat Adderley, Louis Hayes, Sam Jones, Joe Zawinul, and Yusef Lateef)



Bonus Bonus

Here's another rendition from a killer, all-star line-up of Sonny Rollins, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Freddie Hubbard, Bill Watrous, Hubert Laws, McCoy Tyner, George Benson, Stanley Clarke, Lenny White, and Airto Moreira:

Down Beat 1975 poll-winners' show: 'Work Song'

Or, Oscar Brown Jr. hittin' it

Nina Simone

Grant Green

Monty Alexander Trio

Ray Barretto & New World Spirit

Eddie Harris




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Without America, war just wouldn't be the same

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Great, so the U.S. continues to dominate the world's weapons market. According to the NYT:

Despite a recession that knocked down global arms sales last year, the United States expanded its role as the world’s leading weapons supplier, increasing its share to more than two-thirds of all foreign armaments deals, according to a new Congressional study.

The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.

Italy was a distant second, with $3.7 billion in worldwide weapons sales in 2008, while Russia was third with $3.5 billion in arms sales last year — down considerably from the $10.8 billion in weapons deals signed by Moscow in 2007.

The growth in weapons sales by the United States last year was particularly noticeable against worldwide trends. The value of global arms sales in 2008 was $55.2 billion, a drop of 7.6 percent from 2007 and the lowest total for international weapons agreements since 2005.

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! (No, I'm not American. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

**********

This reminds of the brilliant opening-credits sequence in Lord of War. The YouTube clip can't be embedded, but you can watch it here.

Van Jones

By Creature

Put me in the mad-as-hell camp over his resignation. Van Jones was no more radical than, say, Dick Cheney or John Bolton or any member of the Congressional Birther Caucus. The slime campaign and hissy fit against Jones was about getting an Obama scalp and it worked because the administration (and Democrats generally) have no spine for the fight. The double standard against Democrats is alive, well, and, more importantly, self-inflicted.

Why does everything involving a big "D" these days leave me so disheartened?

Obama is for a public option, but...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

And it's a big BUT.

Stephanopoulos: "[Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs says the President will make the case for a public option in his speech to Congress on Wednesday but he won't issue a veto threat if it isn't in the final package."

Okay, fine. So he'll make the case for it but could end up agreeing to a bill without it.

But will his public support for the public option resonate with Democrats either on the fence or with Republicans? Will he say enough to bring them back? Will he be able to unify his party?

Also, what will he say in private, behind closed doors? Will he push for a public option? Will he lobby in support of it, seeking to rally support for his supposedly desired outcome?

Does he really want a public option? How much is he willing to compromise, to give in?

Questions, questions, questions...

I'm still on Obama's side here. I do think he wants meaningful reform with a robust public option. I just think he's being realistic -- and that, up to now, his strategy has been to talk up bipartisanship and let Republicans play their (extremist, obstructionist) hand, eroding whatever credibility they had.

But now, with Republicans decidedly against reform, and with Democrats left to work for reform on their own, it is imperative that he take the lead in making it happen.

It's just that nagging doubt again: How much is he willing to give up to get it done?

Why 60?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I would like to see us at 60. I would like to see some bipartisan support for this bill,

said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on CNN yesterday.

That's great, Senator, so would I, and so would many of us. But let's be realistic, no? It feels like I've said this a million times already, but the Republicans, save perhaps for one half of the Maine delegation, aren't interested in reform and are actually doing everything they can to obstruct, to block, to oppose, to lie, to propagandize, and, basically, to make sure that meaningful reform -- that is, reform with a public option, but pretty much any reform that means anything other than more of the failing status quo -- never sees the light of day. I mean, honestly, did you ever take Chuck Grassley seriously? If so, do you still? If so, you need a reality check.

And why 60? Because you genuinely believe in supermajority rule? Because you believe that reform of any kind, or especially such significant reform, requires more than a simple majority? Please note, the Republicans for their part don't believe this themselves. Remember how they rolled over for Bush?

Or is it rather because Republicans, along with their media mouthpieces, including in the MSM, have convinced you that 60 is the magic number, that anything less is undemocratic, even un-American?

Again, why 60? Why such reverence for filibuster-proofness?

The U.S., lest we forget, does not have a simple unicameral system. It's not a system in which a simple majority can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. There are checks and balances. In this case, any reform bill would have to pass two legislative bodies and receive the approval of the president -- and then be subject to Supreme Court review, if challenged.

As it happens, lest we forget -- lest you not be clear about this, Senator -- the Democrats, your party, currently have fairly large majorities in both houses of Congress. There's also a Democrat in the White House. So why all the effort to give in to Republicans? Sure, I can understand the desire to reach out, to seek bipartisan support, to craft a reform bill that isn't merely a Democratic bill. Again, though, the Republicans have had their chance, have they not? Democrats have gone above and beyond what they ever needed to do, and Republicans, in their way, have responded as they usually do, with nothing but contempt.

And so why 60? What's wrong with 58 or 59 to go along with the Democratic majority in the House -- and with President Obama?

Do what's right for the country, Senator. Do what's right, period.

Happy Birthday, Roger Waters

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Roger Waters, one of the founding members of Pink Floyd, turned 66 yesterday. I'd actually forgotten it was his birthday, but, curiously enough, I spent much of the evening listening to Pink Floyd and his solo work, as well as clips on YouTube.

Now, I'm not one to find connections or meanings where there aren't any -- surely this was a coincidence, right? -- but I couldn't help but wonder. Granted, I listen to Waters and Floyd a lot, but not so much recently. So why yesterday?

Anyway, readers of this blog -- not to mention friends and family -- know how much I love all things Pink Floyd, and how Waters is one of my musical heroes. So, to commemorate his birthday, here are two clips. The first is a wonderful montage of Waters and Floyd set to "Brain Damage" and "Eclipse" that I found at YouTube yesterday. It includes video from Floyd's Live at Pompeii, Waters's concert video from his In the Flesh tour, and Floyd's live Pulse video from the Division Bell tour. The second is Waters's "Each Small Candle," the last song on the In the Flesh album and video, and one of his finest solo efforts.

The Reaction in Review (September 6, 2009)

By Carol Gee

A weekend's Reactions that deserve a second look:

Sunday

By (O)CT(O)PUS: "Happy Labor Day Banana Republic Day" -- Our author provides an alternative, and probably much more realistic, view of the real meaning of Labor Day.

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The children are the future: Barack Obama, Van Jones and right-wing insanity" -- Michael's brilliant post concludes, "It's not Van Jones that's the problem. If it's insanity you're looking for -- insanity mixed with ideological, partisan extremism -- look no further than today's Republican Party and its conservative base."


Saturday

By Capt. Fogg: "MarXrays from Planet Obama" -- Read great word-smith Fogg's concluding graph,"In a way, it's encouraging that after nearly eight months, giving a speech to America's students is the worst thing they can pin on Obama, but that this pathetic collection of misbegotten miscreants will buy into it as enthusiastically as monster-hunting peasants surrounding castle Frankenstein makes me continue to be ashamed at any country with such people in it."

By Mustang Bobby: "Trial balloons" -- Bobby's great analysis ends with the fulfillment of a wonderful fantasy -- what we would all love for the President to say when he addresses Congress on Wednesday.

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Craziest Republican of the Day: Michelle Bachmann" -- One of The Reaction's favorite themes, CRD produced a comment dialog with "anonymous," showcasing a couple of our best debaters, Capt. Fogg and Mustang Bobby.

(Cross-posted at Behind the Links.)

Happy Labor Day Banana Republic Day

By (O)CT(O)PUS

It was not my intention to wish everyone a happy holiday, because there is little to celebrate. Traditionally, Labor Day marks the end of summer and is supposed to honor... well... labor. These days, the facts speak otherwise.

Unemployment has reached 9.7%, a 26-year high. Worker pay has fallen 11 percent since 1973, although worker productivity has risen 78 percent in the same period.

In 1973, corporate CEOs made 45 times more than the average worker. By 1991, CEOs made 140 times more, and by last year, CEO income rose 400 times more.

CEOs take home a larger slice of the American pie. Executive pay rose from 4.8 percent of company income (1993-1995) to 10.3 percent (2001-2003), more than double in less than a decade.

Corporate interests and their shills clamor for lower taxes and more perks -- chauffeured cars, jets, company apartments, club memberships, fancy trips, sports tickets, and financial planning experts. Meanwhile, labor gets downsized and outsourced. Workers watch their home values and retirement accounts vanish, and their wages and benefits cut.

So what is there to celebrate? Maybe we should just rename Labor Day and call it by its real name: National Banana Republic Day.

(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)

Hey there, Trent Edwards

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Living in Toronto, I listen quite a bit to Buffalo sports radio, WGR 550. Our own sports station, the Fan 590, is pretty good, but I like the focus on NFL football in Buffalo -- mainly on the sadly incompetent Bills -- and I also find the morning and drive-home shows extremely amusing, a change of pace from the more serious, if also more edifying, Toronto sports talk.

Needless to say, given the state of the Bills, as well as the NHL's Sabres, sports morale in Buffalo is exceedingly low at the moment, and the upcoming season promises to be a very long one for the Bills. The playoffs are likely out of reach, but perhaps they can reach mediocrity, 7-9 or even 8-8. Even with T.O. in town -- Terrell Owens, that is -- there just isn't that much to get excited about. Part of the problem is terrible coaching -- Dick Jauron is the champion of perpetual mediocrity -- but part of it is also the QB, Trent Edwards. Sure, he's obviously better than J.P. Losman, his predecessor as starter, but questions abound. He's smart, and he has a good arm, but can he actually lead the team to victory? And can he develop the confidence in himself to throw the ball with authority and determination? Fear, thus far, seems to have gotten the better of him.

Anyway, here's a really funny song about Edwards -- to the tune of "Hey There Delilah" by the Plain White T's -- posted at WGR's website. I first heard it Friday morning and was cracking up in the car. If you don't care about football, and don't know anything about Edwards and the Bills, it won't mean much to you. But I thought I'd post it anyway. Take a listen:

The children are the future: Barack Obama, Van Jones, and right-wing insanity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I encourage you all to read Capt. Fogg's fantastic post from yesterday on the right-wing insanity surrounding Obama's address next week to the nation's schoolchildren.

While the right is all mouth-frothingly abuzz over Van Jones -- who, I suppose, ought to resign, if only because he's become such a political liability (although, to be fair, and his right-wing critics certainly aren't being fair, while he did sign the Truther petition, he has stated emphatically that the statement "does not reflect [his] views now or ever") -- let's be clear about something: Van Jones is just one person. Even if you believe -- and there is simply no evidence for this -- that he was a dedicated Truther, the Truthers are a fringe group that has been thoroughly dismissed by mainstream liberals and progressives. (For my part, while I certainly see a connection between U.S. policies abroad and the attacks of 9/11 -- you have to be a fool or an idiot not to, like the American hegemonists on the right -- I simply do not believe that the Bush Administration knew what was coming and let it happen.)

It's a different story on the other side, though, where it isn't just one person but, seemingly, an entire movement, a movement that continues to state emphatically that it stands firmly by its extremist convictions.

Take the tea parties and town halls, for example, where conservatives and those incited by conservatives across the land and fully within the mainstream carry weapons and hurl attacks and accusations at President Obama and the Democrats with a ferocity that is matched only by the ludicrousness of their content.

In other words, while the Truther movement has been effectively repudiated among Democrats, similar insanity is in full force among Republicans. Take the Birther movement, for example -- some Republicans have dismissed it, but it's alive and well throughout the right-wing media, as are the accusations that Obama is a fascist, or a socialist, or something, and now that he wishes to brainwash America's children. And it's not just a right-wing fringe group that is pushing this new attack. For more on this -- and on the insanity of it all -- check out Tim Rutten in the L.A. Times:

While it long ago crossed the borders of reason and civility, the hysteria over healthcare reform is -- at some level -- understandable, because wellness and infirmity are really just stand-ins for those most terrifying of issues, life and death.

But there is no similar way to rationalize the bizarre controversy now raging over President Obama's plan to deliver a brief televised address on Tuesday to the nation's grammar school children.

According to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Obama will "challenge students to work hard, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."

Sounds innocuous. Who, after all, could be against good study habits, personal responsibility and productive lives? As it turns out, quite a number of people who seem to believe that Obama intends to induct their children into -- well, it's not quite clear what they're afraid of. The Web and talk radio are abuzz with various attempts to organize a boycott of Tuesday's speech. One group is urging parents to demand that their children be excused from watching the president and be sent instead to the school library to read the Founding Fathers. (The theory, one supposes, is that a good dose of the Federalist Papers will inoculate the young against Obama's attempts to subvert the republic through good grades.)

On Wednesday, Fox News devoted a substantial portion of one of its prime-time newscasts to a discussion of whether Obama is, in fact, trying to seduce schoolchildren to some darkly obscure personal agenda. The sole guest, a spokesman for the libertarian Cato Institute, reported that "we've gotten a lot of calls from people asking, 'How do I keep my child from being indoctrinated?'"

On Thursday, Jim Greer, chairman of the Florida Republican Party, accused the president of attempting to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." According to Greer, "the idea that schoolchildren across our nation will be forced to watch the president justify his plans for government-run healthcare, banks and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other president, is not only infuriating but goes against the beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power."

Anxiety over the speech seems particularly high in Texas, where many districts are offering parents involved in the boycott movement the option of taking their children out of class. (Whoever thought we'd see Texas treat advocacy of personal responsibility like sex education?)

(Read the whole thing.)

Of course, there's nothing odd about Obama's upcoming address. His predecessors spoke to students, too, after all. What makes this different is not what the president is doing but what his opponents are doing, which is turning an "innocuous" event into a culture war.

It's not Van Jones that's the problem. If it's insanity you're looking for -- insanity mixed with ideological, partisan extremism -- look no further than today's Republican Party and its conservative base.

Quote of the day

By Mustang Bobby

The President of the United States speaking to America's school children:

Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.

So the president was trying to get the impressionable kids to support to his ideological agenda after all. I can understand why the Republicans are furious. Oh, wait... This was in 1991, and the president was George H.W. Bush. Never mind.

H/T to Steve Benen.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Truth in Comics

By Creature


If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

MarXrays from Planet Obama

By Capt. Fogg

My doctor was running a bit late yesterday morning and I spent about a half hour sitting in the waiting room staring at the wall. About 10 minutes before my name was called, a tall, gaunt man in his late 70s lowered his newspaper and said to his wife in the loud way those hard of hearing do: "this is just wrong." His wife seemed to slump down in her chair and mumbled something about Obama only urging kids to work hard and stay in school. "Sixth graders aren't the ones dropping out," he replied, "and asking them to help him, that's just wrong."

Of course, nothing is "just wrong," it's what you say when you don't have a reason you wish to think about, much less discuss. Of course, nobody faulted Bush for reading to kids, and I don't remember any such idiocy about keeping kids from listening to the president since radio broadcasting began in the 1920's, but the idea that president Obama should avoid talking about civics or anything else with school children is based on unsavory premises that need to be hidden -- and so "it's just wrong."

It's amazing how the idea that Obama not only would be "indoctrinating" anyone by making a public speech, much less indoctrinating them in some insidious Marxist plot, is to me one of the most fascinating things about American insanity. It may be the most obviously contrived meme ever to infect us, stemming at first from his questioning of the gospel of tax cuts and privatization and then reflecting the demand by a large majority for the kind of system we have in Medicare already. I don't have space to show how foolish this is and I don't need it -- just read the papers.

If a graduated income tax is Marxist, then as I've said several times, Adam Smith and Teddy Roosevelt were socialists, FDR was the anti-Christ, and Dwight Eisenhower was Lenin. Still, the meme has cascaded down from the RNC through Fox and the ignorant backwoods bastards who hate black people and want to launder their bigotry at Murdoch's laundromat. "Work hard and stay in school?" "Think about ways to improve our nation?" COMMUNISM! FASCISM!

It's not just that miserable old hypocrite in the waiting room, doubtless having his bill payed by "socialist" medicare, it's the ignorant, stupid, miserable bastards of America pushing school boards to let their kids stay home and not be exposed to the communising Obamanite which emits MarXrays causing them to speak French and visit a dentist regularly.

Michelle Malkin is squealing like a stuck pig. World Net Daily is calling for a national "stay home from school day." Glenn Beck is being -- Glenn Beck. And the rest of the Republican blogswamp is croaking like bullfrogs after a rainstorm: "Obama wants to create his own Hitler Youth!" School boards all over the country are being besieged by howling rednecks and districts in six states so far are refusing to tune in. It's crawling through the nation's school system like a flesh eating virus.

In a way, it's encouraging that after nearly eight months, giving a speech to America's students is the worst thing they can pin on Obama, but that this pathetic collection of misbegotten miscreants will buy into it as enthusiastically as monster-hunting peasants surrounding castle Frankenstein makes me continue to be ashamed at any country with such people in it.

(Cross-posted to Human Voices.)

Trial balloons

By Mustang Bobby

Now that the president has decided to bet the future of his healthcare proposals on one address before a joint session of Congress next week, the airwaves, cables, internet, blogosphere, and even Facebook have been filled with speculation and all sorts of supposed insider scoops on what will come down from Capitol Hill next Wednesday night. I think it is probably safe to say that no one -- not even the president -- knows for certain exactly where we'll be with the debate next Thursday morning, but all the pundits, who have nothing to lose no matter whether they're right or wrong, are sure that this will redefine the Obama presidency and be the Most Important Thing he ever does. Or not.

Will he keep the public option or not? Will one senator from Maine become the decider over the future of 46 million people without health insurance? Will the Republicans win concessions because they screamed the loudest? Will the lunatic fringe keep pushing the limits of paranoia and gob-smacking blather? (The last one is pretty certain.)

As a lot of people, including pundits and bloggers, have pointed out, there's a difference between compromise, concessions, and caving in. The president campaigned on and passionately spoke of making sure that every American had access to healthcare insurance, getting costs down, improving efficiency, and guaranteeing that the limits placed on insurance now -- portability, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and arbitrary limits that stand in the way of the practice of medicine -- go away. Now he has to deliver those in the face of some of the most vitriolic and baseless lies and distortions that have been perpetrated by a minority of interests, some of whom have made it very clear that their motivation has nothing whatsoever to do with healthcare; they see the debate and the circus as their shortcut to getting their hatred into the mix.

I don't think the president has a whole lot of options, so to speak. He's tried bipartisanship and gotten nothing for his efforts. He's angered his own base for even attempting to work with Republicans, and he's learned all too well that doing the opposite of what doomed the Clinton plan in 1993 -- write the bill at the White House and try to ram it through Congress -- doesn't work either. And if he gives in to the screamers and the deathers and the lunatics, he will have proven that he can be rolled by infantile tantrums. You would think that as the father of two children, he would know better.

So what we're seeing coming out of the White House and Capitol Hill between now and Wednesday will be a whole lot of trial balloons -- public option or not; trigger or not; reconciliation or not -- and at the end, we'll all be watching. Perhaps that has been the idea all along.

For my part, I hope he takes to the podium, looks at the Republicans, smiles, and says, "Okay, you had your fun. This is what we're doing: public option, coverage for all, regulation of health insurance companies within an inch of their lives, and anything else I can come up with that will drive you up the wall. We'll ram it through by reconciliation the same way Bush put through his tax cuts and his war in Iraq, and if you don't like it, try to imagine within your wildest dreams how much I care. You had your chance and you came up with nothing but fear, loathing, racist dog-whistles, and lies, all of which proved you haven't the right to lead anything more than a goon squad. So sit down, shut up, and hold on."

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Michele Bachmann

By Michael J.W. Stickings

How many times has she been CRD? I've lost count. Anyway, this is priceless:

Also with women politicians, they want to make sure no women, no woman becomes president before a Democrat woman, and so they're doing everything they can to, I think, sabotage women like Sarah Palin, perhaps women like myself, or similarly situated women, to make sure that we don't have a prominent national voice. But the thing is, the people in our country, they don't care who the voice is, they just want someone, they want to know that someone is speaking out for them against what will certainly bring about the destruction of our great country if we continue to go down the Obama path.

There's a lot in there that's stupid... Obama is destroying the country? Really? Come on. Such hyperbole is so ridiculous as to be -- if so many on the right didn't actually believe it -- amusing.

But the best part is that Bachmann seems to think that the Democrats are trying to "sabotage" her because she might just be president one day.

Which is hilarious, of course, and even more so because Bachmann is so utterly without irony. She means it.

Now, I certainly don't speak for all Democrats, or for the Democratic Party, but I do think I speak for many Democrats when I say that I would welcome Bachmann at the top of a Republican presidential ticket.

Bring. It. On.

Or even if the Republicans want to give her a more prominent national voice. I'd be fine with that, too. I think she's be a fine spokesperson for the GOP, with just the right amount of crazy for an utterly crazy party.

The Reaction in review (September 4, 2009)

By Carol Gee

A week's Reactions that deserve a second look:


Creature Feature: great stuff on Health Care Reform -- "Trigger details," "...on life support," "Enzi:," "Trigger," "death of public option," "re seniors."


Friday

By Malia Cohen: "The Mission of a Generation" -- Our guest author's fine post takes a heartfelt look at Eric Greenberg's book discussion of the Millennial Generation's challenge of "inheriting a damaged future fueled by a series of problems that are of crisis proportions."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Canada, racism, and the nightmare of Suaad Hagi Mohamud" -- From his article published recently in The Guardian, Michael is "appalled" by the government's handling of the case.


Thursday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Public opinion and the public option" -- Citing E. J. Dionne's point that the media created a false impression regarding the importance of the right wing fringe view, Michael effectively argues "that there is much broader support for reform than we are led to believe . . . "

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Worst Democrat of the Day: Blanche Lincoln" -- Senator Lincoln gets Michael's nomination for bailing out on the public option, saying that she (and others like her) can't "look beyond their noses . . . or put the good of the country before their own political ambitions."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Pat Buchanan, Hitler apologist" -- Regarding a Buchanan assertion, Michael says in his great little piece, "This is appalling, among the worst I've ever heard or read from Buchanan."


Wednesday

By Carl: "A lesson in populism" -- Carl's very fascinating piece explores the current fallout that has stemmed from California's earlier passage of Proposition 13 freezing property tax rates at 1%.

By Mustang Bobby: "Florida GOP gets a dunce cap" -- Bobby takes on Florida's Republican party for it's "lunatic" stance against President Obama's upcoming speech to school kids.

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Exhibit #43,859 re: the American right is fucking insane" -- Michael's post, on an NLPC story from the right regarding gathering information from the internet, says he's had it with such hypocritical and paranoid charges.


Tuesday

By Carl: "The Third Musketeer: Pathos" -- Carl's incisive essay, on a feud between Joe Klein at Time Magazine and popular civil liberties attorney and liberal blogger, Glenn Greenwald, correctly comes down on Greenwald's side.

By Capt. Fogg: "WTF?" -- Fogg bravely wades in to the fetid waters of Republican Glenn Beck's show featuring black "pastor" Stephen Broden of Dallas, asking the the right question full out, rather than using the "telephone keypad abbreviation."

By (O)CT(O)PUS: "Exposing the puppet masters behind the puppets" -- Whether crazy right wing pundits' comments need be countered is the question explored in this great post, which argues that we forget their oligarchical puppet masters at our peril.

By Michael Lieberman: "Climate change is a real national security threat, even for a realist" -- Another of our guest posters from Truman Project, Lieberman persuasively argues that the effects of climate change can pose actual threats to U.S. national security, and are not necessarily "mere hype."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "The truth about Republicans (and health care reform)" -- Michael exposes what is becoming abundantly apparent, "even ... supposed compromisers, the supposed moderates, don't really want reform at all, as we've suspected -- indeed, as we've known -- all along."


Monday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Understatement of the Day: Robert Gibbs on Dick Cheney" -- Michael would have put it much more strongly, it seems. For more on Cheney's Sunday prosecution pronouncement, see Carl's Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Dick! and Creature's Bored with Cheney.

(Cross-posted at Behind the Links.)

The Mission of a Generation

Guest post by Malia Cohen

History shows that every generation has a mission. Some rise to the challenge nobly as the Greatest Generation rose to the challenge posed by the Great Depression and the rise of fascism. Others muddle through, as did the Silent Generation of the 1950s who largely maintained the comfortable status quo they inherited from their parents. There comes a rare time, however, when a tidal wave of world conditions takes siege over the possibilities and hope of a generation in the pursuit of writing the next chapter in human history. In this new generation, referred to as Millennials, these new champions are young, technically adept, globally oriented, well-educated, and are poised to address the complex challenges of a nation in decline.

Eric Greenberg nails it in his book discussion at Google. Finally, someone who gets it! He concludes that Generation We or Millennials are inheriting a damaged future fueled by a series of problems that are of crisis proportions. Without intervention, Greenberg suggests that our Nation and World will continue to decline. America, in spite of its vast growth economic and scientific advancement, would continue to devolve broken educational systems, programs and services that perpetuate child poverty, expanding health disparities, and a paralyzing deficit.

Let me give you an example of what we’re facing: It’s not secret that scientist warn we may only have a ten year window before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable. This is a very real threat and one that I don’t take lightly. The devastation is putting mankind at risk. The world’s natural resources are being pillaged, deserts are being created and clean water is becoming a luxury. Raw materials are being consumed unsustainably and we need to take the threat of global warming seriously.

Apparently I am not the only one concerned. Analysts within the CIA, Pentagon, Center for Naval Analysis and US Army War College all consider the risks of global warming real, and a threat multiplier. Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, offered testimony before Congress stating the Intelligence Community’s belief that “global climate change will have important and extensive implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years.”

So what can we do about this? First, acknowledge that we need to restore and protect our environment and the planet. We must immediately reverse and repair the environment. Greenberg is correct, the mission of the Millennial Generation is to innovate our way to new sources of nonfossil fuel energy; in the same way John F Kennedy, in 1962, set the impossible goal of sending a man to the moon; an audacious challenge at the time.

I will be the first to admit that things are not going to get better on their own. Instead, we need to think about what is in our collective best interest and take action. If we don’t then we face societal decline. However, according to Greenberg, brewing before us are millions of young dedicated progressive young leaders anxious to effect change.

After making a great case for Generation We, Greenberg believes that an agenda must be implemented, and support and guidance must be provided. He provides constructive ideas in both veins. If nothing else, I feel more assured that the problems of the world will not go un-checked. And for that I’m extremely optimistic.

(Cross-posted from Operation FREE.)

Trigger details

By Creature

No:

Under Ms. Snowe’s proposal, a new government corporation would offer health insurance in any states where affordable coverage was not readily and widely available from private insurers. The corporation would not be part of the Department of Health and Human Services, although federal officials would serve on its board.

The public insurance plan would be offered in any state where fewer than 95 percent of the residents had access to affordable coverage.

The point of a public option is a national pool with all the leverage that brings. State by state will not cut it. Sorry, but trigger: fail.

Craziest Republican of the Day: James Inhofe

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's one of the craziest each and every day, but some days he stands out above even his own awesomely lofty standards. Take, for example, what he said about Gitmo the other day at a town hall in Grove, Oklahoma:

There has never been a case of torture there. The people there are treated better than in the federal prisons.

No torture at Gitmo? Ever? (Does Cheney know? I mean, he was behind the Bush Torture Regime. Would he not be disappointed that no one was tortured?)

TP: "As the Center for Constitutional Rights has documented, there have been countless cases of detainees being abused and tortured at the prison camp. Detainees have been beaten, deprived of sleep for weeks, sexually harrassed, and shackled to the floor for days at a time."

Yet Inhofe, who also thinks that global warming is a hoax, genuinely seems to believe his own nonsense. That makes him not just an ideological extremist but seriously crazy.

The public option on progressive life support

By Creature

As Michael said: Yes, yes, yes.

Big props to the Progressive caucus and Nancy Pelosi for standing firm on the public option. It's time for the Blue Dogs to bend. They need to get out of the way and on the right side of history. If healthcare reform fails it will be because of them (and the president). Don't let anyone tell you different.

Canada, racism, and the nightmare of Suaad Hagi Mohamud

By Michael J.W. Stickings

My latest article at The Guardian was published a couple of days ago.

It's on the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud, the Kenyan-Canadian woman who was detained in Nairobi a few months ago for not looking enough like her passport photo. Canadian officials refused to come to her defence and actually pushed for her to be prosecuted, with the government back in Ottawa doing nothing to help until a DNA test proved her identity. I argue that there was likely a racist double standard at work. She would not have been treated the way she was by the Canadian government had she been a white woman with a "normal" name from a more upscale Toronto neighbourhood. Here's my conclusion:

No, Canada may not be an "apartheid" state, as the Toronto Star's Christopher Hume suggested. But I think Hume is right to ask the key question: "Is citizenship now defined by the colour of your skin?" In Mohamud's case, it seems that her status was defined not just by her skin colour but by her name and her religion.

From Nairobi to Ottawa, the Canadian government's handling of the Mohamud case has been, from the start, appalling. We like to think that this sort of thing only happens elsewhere, often down in the US, where such segregation, such a double standard, is, we observe with noses held high, commonplace. It's time we woke up to the truth.

You can read the entire piece here.

A public option, or else

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, yes, yes.

It's time for Democrats to take a stand, even with other Democrats. Here's Greg Sargent:

In a letter delivered to the White House [yesterday afternoon], the two leaders of the bloc of House progressives bluntly told President Obama that they will not support any health care plan without a public option in it — and demanded a meeting to inform him face to face.

The not-yet-released letter — the first joint statement from progressives since news emerged that Obama might not address the public option in next week's speech — is their sharpest challenge yet to the president, given the extraordinary sensitivity of this political moment. The letter urges him to mention the public option in his speech.

And here's Nancy Pelosi herself (via Brian Beutler):

A bill without a strong public option will not pass the House.

It's quite simple, isn't it? Democrats, at long last, need to fight for what they believe in and not let themselves be pushed around by obstructionist, anti-reform Republicans or fellow Democrats of the center/right who have no interest in meaningful reform and certainly not in a public option.

Like Creature, I'm no fan of "lockstep marching," but enough is enough.

Public opinion and the public option

By Michael J.W. Stickings

E.J. Dionne makes an excellent point in today's WaPo:

Health-care reform is said to be in trouble partly because of those raucous August town-hall meetings in which Democratic members of Congress were besieged by shouters opposed to change.

But what if our media-created impression of the meetings is wrong? What if the highly publicized screamers represented only a fraction of public opinion? What if most of the town halls were populated by citizens who respectfully but firmly expressed a mixture of support, concern and doubt?

I think that's right, and Dionne goes on to show just how the media created that impression:

There is an overwhelming case that the electronic media went out of their way to cover the noise and ignored the calmer (and from television's point of view "boring") encounters between elected representatives and their constituents.

It's also clear that the anger that got so much attention largely reflects a fringe right-wing view opposed to all sorts of government programs most Americans support. Much as the far left of the antiwar movement commanded wide coverage during the Vietnam years, so now are extremists on the right hogging the media stage -- with the media's complicity.

This is not to say, of course, that health-care reform with a robust public option commands huge support with the American people. It doesn't -- for three reasons: 1) Republican propaganda has been effective at misrepresenting reform (especially the public option); 2) the media have given credibility to Republican propaganda by positioning it as a legitimate alternative to the truth in their coverage of politics as sport; and 3) Obama and the Democrats in Congress have been unable to get their message out effectively -- in other words, they haven't yet made the case for reform in a way that shifts public opinion in their direction.

Still, what is clear, I think, is that there is much broader support for reform than we are led to believe by a media establishment that has overstated the significance of a few select town halls, playing up the sensationalism of it all while basically ignoring what hasn't fit into its GOP-friendly narrative of conflict and opposition.

For meaningful reform to pass, it is essential that Obama and the Democrats tap into -- and seek the support of, even at this late date -- the vast majority of Americans who aren't on the right-wing fringe and who, much to their credit, don't think that shouting and screaming is the best way to participate in a democracy.

The drumbeat for a public option

By Carl

If not for single payer healthcare:

The truth is that government, for all its flaws, manages to do some things right, so that today few people doubt the wisdom of public police or firefighters. And the government has a particularly good record in medical care.

[...]

A study by the Rand Corporation concluded that compared with a national sample, Americans treated in veterans hospitals "received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up." The difference was particularly large in preventive medicine: veterans were nearly 50 percent more likely to receive recommended care than Americans as a whole.

"If other health care providers followed the V.A.'s lead, it would be a major step toward improving the quality of care across the U.S. health care system," Rand reported.

That's the Rand Corporation, folks. Not SEIU. Not ACORN. Not the DNC. The Rand Corporation, an objective, non-profit think tank. Formed by the US DoD, I might add.

Government is designed to do the Big Things: national highway system, defense, interstate commerce, natural resource protection, coastal protection, creating a national energy policy, installing the national electric grid, dams, coordinated air traffic control.

Healthcare should not only be among those, it should be at the top of the list. And while, at this point, any healthcare reform, even if it's just reforming the insurance we pay for privately, is welcome, there is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that single payer coverage should not be the law of the land.

Period.

Forget the "public option," it should be a "private option" if you don't want to be on the National Health Service.

I urge President Obama in his speech tonight to raise the issue and to defend and deflate the inevitable ignorant attacks from the fear-mongerers of the right, funded largely by insurers and the AMA, nipping this dissent in the bud. He should produce and present a cogent and organized outline of a public health plan that would help us prevent disease rather than treat it, provide for mental health treatment (the average mortality rate of people diagnosed with mental health issues is 25 years shorter than those undiagnosed), and give Americans the promise of the Declaration of Independence: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Enzi: ‘I’m pretty sure’ that health care reform is ‘going to fail.’

By Creature

I'm not a fan of lockstep marching. However, shouldn't Democrats want to rally around healthcare reform (or at least rally to prevent a filibuster) simply for the pure pleasure of proving Republicans wrong. That would satisfy me, but I'm a simple man.

Worst Democrat of the Day: Blanche Lincoln

By Michael J.W. Stickings

For bailing on the public option -- because of its supposed cost:

For some in my caucus, when they talk about a public option they're talking about another entitlement program, and we can't afford that right now as a nation.

*****

I'm not going to vote for a bill that's not deficit-neutral, and I'm not going to vote for a bill that doesn't do something about curbing the cost in the out years, because it would be pointless... I would not support a solely government-funded public option. We can't afford that.

No, but the Democratic plan is actually... deficit-neutral. Which essentially renders Lincoln's opposition to it pointless.

Oh, but she has a point. The Arkansas senator is clearly pandering to her right-leaning constituency, what with her re-election prospects looking grim.

Benen: "This might be a good time to note that bloggers seem to be the only people in the country who realize that a public option would be cheaper than the alternative. If Lincoln is concerned about what "we can afford," she should be an enthusiastic champion of the public option. I suspect she knows this, but doesn't quite have the courage to explain this to her enraged constituents."

Indeed. And even if a public option were too costly, in Lincoln's view, what of the cost of doing nothing? The current system is simply not sustainable over the long term, with costs spiralling out of control (and with millions and millions of Americans either with inadequate coverage or without coverage altogether), and the situation is only getting worse.

But don't expect the likes of Blanche Lincoln to look beyond their noses, or even to put the good of the country before their own political ambitions.

Trigger

By Creature

I'm all for putting a trigger into any healthcare legislation that makes its way through Congress, so long as that trigger kicks in the moment the president signs the bill. And people think I'm unreasonable.

Pat Buchanan, Hitler apologist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, Pat Buchanan, he with the punditocratic platform at MSNBC, who blames Britain for starting WWII and essentially absolves Hitler of any and all responsibility for the war.

He doesn't deny the Holocaust, thankfully, but his history is revisionist fiction, including this:

Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

In other words, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened -- or at least wouldn't have been as large -- had Hitler gotten his way. The implication, of course, is that not just the war but the Holocaust was Britain's fault.

Hitler only wanted peace, don't you know. He gave the British ample opportunity -- forget his war of imperial conquest everywhere else.

This is appalling, among the worst I've ever heard or read from Buchanan. Why he still has his platform in the MSM is beyond me.

For more, make sure to check out Matt Yglesias's excellent rebuttal. See also Steve Benen (who rightly notes that Buchanan's "status in the media establishment [will go] unaffected"), dday at C&L, and Adam Serwer.

Levi and Sarah

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Raise your hand if you're at all interested in reading a piece in Vanity Fair on Sarah Palin by none other than would be son-in-law Levi Johnston.

(Pause.)

That's what I thought. I mean, enough is enough, right? You have better things to do with your time, hopefully many, many better things.

And yet.

This teaser suggests that there are some real gems in there, an insider account of Palin and the Palin Clan that further erodes the Palin myth and exposes the ex-governor for what she really is.

Like how she's not much of a parent. Like how she pushed to adopt Bristol and Levi's baby -- and to keep it all a secret. Like how she wanted to "quit being governor" and "triple the money." Like how she's basically a Trailer Park Princess -- okay, that's my line, but I think it fits.

Don't let this take time away from, say, preparing for your fantasy football draft, or otherwise from the pursuit of happiness however you define it. But if you have some time, why not spend a few minutes with Levi and Sarah? Why not get to know the real Sarah Palin?

It takes a village to cover-up crimes

By Creature

If David Broder is so worried that the country would be damaged by investigating torture, where was he when the torturers were damaging the country in the first place? Oh, that's right, he was having cocktails with them. David Broder doesn't want to protect the country, he wants to protect his friends.

A lesson in populism

By Carl

Or why people are idiots:

California’s wildfires are not only burning trees – they’re burning state cash, and setting off a cascade of other problems in the state. Already, as the fires appeared to have spread in the past 24 hours, they have delayed a ballot count in two special elections.

Let's focus on the "cash" aspect. California has had major budget woes this year already, mostly due to the facts with respect to the overall poor economy, as well as the plummet in property values.

But...

If California had been allowed under state law to have its taxes, particularly its property taxes, indexed over the past twenty to thirty years, this crisis would have been far more manageable.

You might recall, if you are of a certain age, an asshole named Howard Jarvis. Jarvis is the asshat credited with "Proposition 13," a particularly moronic piece of "citizen activism" that forced California to freeze its property tax rates at 1% (One. Percent.) of the assessed value of the property. This created an immediate average property tax cut of 57% statewide, and a blooming deficit in couty and municipal coffers for eternity, ad nauseum.

This is why, for instance, Los Angeles among many other cities and towns, is under constant threat of default, dragging California as a whole down that path a few times already.

In a juxtaposition of irony, Californians have been hurt by Prop 13 in a booming housing market as it creates a disincentive to sell (the property taxed is indexed to the resale value, not the assessed value), while also creating a desperate housing market in an era of "buy as many homes as you want".

Hmmmm...

And now, those same homes that have been coddled by Prop 13 are burning up faster than you can turn around to look, as Prop 13 tended to benefit more those older, more established areas close into downtown urban areas, like Los Angeles.

Of course, most of the people who approved Prop 13 don't live anywhere near the fire zone, so what do they care, right?

Well, see, the trouble with that logic is, the cash drain that's going to cause this enormous budget gap won't only affect LA. It will affect infrastructure repair. It will affect flood prevention and rescue (another of California's season: mud). It will affect hospitals and firefighters and police forces.

And more important, it will cut into the state's water reserves, already down to between three and six months supply. A three year long drought will do that.

Now, if there's an earthquake up near San Francisco, up in the Central Valley, and the levees break, allowing sea water into the water supplies for both Frisco and LA, it's ballgame over, and there will be a mass exodus from California, south to San Diego.

And where will your property tax freeze help there, smartypants?

Of course, no one could have forseen fire and drought in a desert, could they?

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Florida GOP gets a dunce cap

By Mustang Bobby

President Obama will address the nation's school children next week.

The Department of Education's press release says about the address: "The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens."

That sounds pretty much like the boilerplate rah-rah hit-the-books and achieve educational blather that students have been hearing from presidents and state leaders for time out of mind. But the Florida GOP chairman, Jim Greer, sees it as the biggest threat to children since cooties:

As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

[...]

While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President's agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President's initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

Hoo boy. And Mr. Greer is considered to be a "moderate" Republican -- of course, nowadays that means he only takes a BB-gun to a town hall meeting.

Eric Kleefeld of TPM followed up this press release with a chat with Katie Gordon, the party's press secretary, who affirmed Mr. Greer's lunacy:

Well, I know that a lot of the President's ideas don't reflect my values and don't reflect the values that I would be teaching my children. And to be quite honest, there are a lot of the President's ideas that I wouldn't want my children discussing in a public school. It's not appropriate, the place for that is in the home.

[...]

This is an abuse of power and an attempt by the Obama Administration to indoctrinate young Americans into supporting his socialist agenda. Parents should be extremely concerned.

If Ms. Gordon is teaching her children that what the president's agenda is is "socialism," she has a hell of a lot to learn about political and economic theory; apparently anything short of "I got mine, screw you," or beyond the scope of My Pet Goat is socialism.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

A stupid poll (about Ted Kennedy)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Poll: Ted Kennedy's Favorability Was Lower Among GOP, Independents, Southerners"

That's a headline at The Washington Independent, atop an article by David Weigel. To which I respond: And?

I suppose the numbers themselves are somewhat, if barely, interesting. A slight majority of respondents -- 51% -- had a "favorable opinion" of Ted Kennedy shortly before his death (the poll was conducted July 31 to August 3). Otherwise, though, what's the point? What do we learn?

That Kennedy was more popular among Democrats than among Republicans, with Independents in between? That Kennedy was more popular in the Northeast and West than in the Midwest and South?

Isn't all that pretty obvious?

If anything is interesting, it's that Kennedy's favorability rating in the South, a strongly Republican part of the country, was a strong 48%.

And yet, with fairly high sampling errors (+/- 5-6.5%), it's not clear how accurate the poll is when broken down into partisan and regional components.

News outlets like CNN insist that public opinion surveys are news. Many of them, though, are just a waste of time.