The Other N-Word

From Allison Kilkenny at Smirking Chimp (she gets it, how bout you?):

The Other N-Word

I  get it. People are pissed at Ralph Nader. They blame him for “stealing” votes from Gore and consequentially Bush defeating Gore in the 2000 election. They hate Ralph, and his droopy little eye, even though Pat Buchanan also “stole” some votes from Bush in Florida (and Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin,) and no one blames him for having the nerve to participate in our democracy.

Asking people to vote for Ralph Nader is sort of like asking them to perform self-flagellation. They want to bet on a horse that’s going to win, and I have yet to form a compelling argument for how the good guys can win. So I’ve accepted that I’ll just have to pay tribute to Nader, the great humanitarian and environmentalist, in some sort of last-ditch, meaningless gesture. I’ll just request my headstone read: I didn’t like any of you, respected few of you, and should have voted for Ralph Nader.…Or something….

After Obama voted for telecom immunity, my inbox exploded with angry diatribes from my Progressives readers, all of who demanded explanations for the Senator’s suspicious behavior. First, I explained that I have no access to Obama’s thinking. Second, I explained that, while Obama has said some promising things in the past (something about having gay friends in red states,) he never claimed to be THE Progressive candidate. We assigned all our hopes and dreams to a man who seemed Progressive when contrasted against the fiery train wreck sitting in our White House. We all sort of hoped things would work themselves out.

They didn’t. Obama has catered to the middle with gun control, telecom immunity, the death penalty, faith-based initiatives, and troop withdrawal landmarks. The only man who can save us now is Ralph Nader. Before you click that little, red “X” in the corner of your browser, let me explain myself. The Progressives should petition that Ralph Nader be allowed access to national, televised debates in a three-way discussion with John McCain and Barack Obama.

Having Ralph Nader participate in a debate is not only the democratically right thing to do, but it will force Obama to think more progressively in his policies. It’s easy to look like a liberal standing next to John “I’m Crazy And Will Bring On The Apocalypse” McCain. All you really have to do is stand up straight, say something about Universal Healthcare, and not become giddy over Iranians developing lung cancer. Even if Obama backpedals on promises, like holding telecom companies accountable for spying on Americans, he STILL looks liberal standing next to McCain.

But if Nader is there, scowling at Obama’s sweat-soaked profile, suddenly Americans will see their full spectrum of political choices. Obama and Nader don’t get along. At all. Apparently, Obama’s charm and pretty smile didn’t woo battered hardass Nader, who I imagine nearly took off Obama’s head the second Obama said something about wanting to compromise on certain Progressive issues. I guess it’s hard to smooth-talk a man who was once tailed by a General Motors-hired private spy. If he could withstand attacks from one of the most powerful corporations in the world, Nader could handle Obama’s charm. Obama seemed shocked that Nader didn’t lap up his pretty promises like a trained dog.

“My sense is that Mr. Nader is somebody who if you’re — don’t listen and adopt all of his policies, thinks you’re not substantive. He seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work,” Obama remarked after meeting with Nader. I’m not sure what that means. Is it the fact that Nader is principled or the fact that he’s proud and protective of his decades of work in consumer safety that bothers Obama the most?

Nader’s presence would be a welcome change in this election. Millions of voters feel unrepresented by the Democratic and Republican parties. These people would find refuge in voting for Independent candidates. They just don’t know it yet because they don’t know they have choices. Every four years, they think they must vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, which is understandable considering networks refuse to even televise other candidates.

Early this year, Dennis Kucinich was shut out of a televised MSNBC debate, despite the fact that the network originally invited him to participate and America still claims to be a “free society,” one with open, fair elections. The debate quickly became homogenized once Kucinich disappeared. Edwards said something…probably about his father working in a mill. Then Edwards fell out and Hillary and Obama became one, indistinguishable blob I call Hillbama as they bickered for months over the trivial differences between their campaigns. Hillary cried. Barack called a reporter “sweetie.” Tim Russert died from the strain of it all. The end.

Now, we arrive at another critical juncture in the race toward the White House. Yet again, we find ourselves at the mercy of huge network conglomerates that decide what ideologies the American people will hear. Interestingly, six percent of people polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey said they are likely to vote for an alternative candidate. Who is going to represent their voices?

Anyone who shows a reasonable measure of competitiveness should be permitted to debate. And Ralph Nader is definitely competitive. Surely, no one who blames Nader for Gore’s defeat in 2000 could argue differently. One can either admit Nader is incredibly influential and cajoled many Democrats to vote for him, or they can argue he’s totally insignificant and had no influence in the 2000 election. If they agree that he was influential in 2000, then they must recognize that he’s influential enough to participate in the debates.

Or we can be adults and stop casting blame for Gore’s mishandled 2000 campaign. We can act like a civilized country and recognize that millions of voters are undecided, unrepresented, and would love to hear what Mr. Nader has to say. One needn’t vote for Nader in order to recognize that he has the right to run for president, and as part of that right, he must be heard in debates.

At the moment, Nader needs to bump that 6% up to 10% in order to participate in national debates. Oh, he also needs to jump through thousands of hoops and cut through forests of red tape, and even then, all MSNBC needs to do is say “no,” like they did to Dennis Kucinich, in order to silence Nader forever.

If Nader isn’t permitted to debate, not only will our democracy suffer, but Obama supporters will suffer as well. Nader’s presence will force the dialogue to expand past pointless bickering over lapel pins and ex-wives. Maybe his presence would even force us to examine the big issues differently. Maybe, for once, our nation will discuss issues of peace rather than how long the current war should last. Maybe we’ll start to seriously discuss the environment, poverty, human rights…the possibilities are endless.

Only when a man like Ralph Nader can participate in our democracy can we call ourselves — and our time — Progressive.

That little issue left undone– impeachment

Could the Democrats in the House be slithering out of a primeval slime to evolve from a pusillanimous sea slug (native to the Sea of Hypocrisy), into something that breathes air, walks upright and as a rule does not eat its own young? Since September 11th, the Democrats in Congress have been on a downward evolutionary spiral; could that trend have been thrown into reverse by the doings of an even more degenerate species?
To be sure, some members of Congress have been doing their duty to uphold the Constitution. John Conyers has been actively pushing impeachment of Bush and Cheney since 2005. And Rep. Robert Wexler has his campaign. Last November, Rep. Dennis Kucinich led the charge to “send a resolution considering the impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee.” Republican Texan, Rep. Ron Paul has condemned the White House “demented philosophy of conquest.”

Recently, this bravery was followed up by Congressional issuance of contempt citations to that disgraceful duo Joshua B. Bolton and Harriet E. Miers. What’s more, on the same day, Democrats in Congress refused to make permanent the temporary the Protect (George W. Bush from) America Act. Words fail me. Imagine that.

Joined by three Republicans, including Rep. Ron Paul, House Democrats finally did their job by protecting Americans from Bush.

Who will protect George W. Bush and his friends from the anger of Americans? What’s Bush’s overall job rating? Latest polls show that only 20% of Americans support Bush. Who would have guessed it was that high? It isn’t; we rounded up. Only Pervez Musharraf has such bad numbers. Looks like the tar is boiling and the feathers are ready; all we need is the rail.

Condemning the Democratic refusal to obey Bush, GOP Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, said “They’re just playing with fire on this.” Does this means the GOP Congressmen and women are so full of hot air they’re going to blow?

How dare the Democrats put the best interests of the country above those of King George? In response to the blatant audacity of the Democrats, the bulk of Republican members of Congress rose to their feet and walked out of the building. As if drawn by the magnet of microphones and the siren call of TV cameras, the GOP Congressmen marched down the Capitol steps… laughing that “they got the right message!” I think it’s often a joke but do Republican members of Congress agree with my assessment that what they do for a living is a laughing matter?

Republican Minority leader John Boehner couldn’t even get it right. The fact is FISA will still be in effect even if the Protect America Act is tossed out with the fish heads where it belongs. Maybe if it was correctly titled the “Spy on Americans Act” we’d feel better about it. Contrary to Bush’s claims, without renewal of the Act, Americans will still be as safe as ever… more so actually, if someone remembered to lock the Congressional door behind those huffy, departing GOP members.

Last week’s act of defiance by the Democrats was long overdue. The fact is this Democratic-led congress was elected with… you guess it… a clear mandate to end the war in Iraq and to stop the Runaway Shrub. Maybe the Democrats have read Glenn Hurowitz’s opus Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party?

Which brings up the big I word… Impeachment.

To impeach or not to impeach, that is the question.

If the esteemed members of the House of Representatives all had the same courage as John Conyers and Robert Wexler and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, that answer would be an unequivocal yes!

Way back in June, 2003, on the subject of the missing WMD in Iraq, former Nixon counsel John W. Dean wrote: “To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be “a high crime” under the Constitution’s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony ‘to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.’”

So… When do we start cooking?! It’s time to fire up the old Weber BBQ! People are starving. We got us some Texas Pachyderm to roast!

The list of “controversies” set off by George and Dick is longer than War and Peace and it just keeps growing. And “those two” are still busy. Iran is next. So little time, so much to ruin.

What has been holding back the Democrats in Congress? You’ve got to ask yourself: Just what is Congress afraid of? That’s the million-dollar question. Are they afraid to be carried aloft triumphantly by a cheering American Citizenry…not to mention being honored by the rest of the world?

Makes you wonder if the US voter is being two-timed. Does some other entity come first in the affections of Congress? Is there an entity so seductive and powerful that it can override the will of the US voter?

Who or what is this powerful entity? Who or what would think it’s in their best interests to have “those two” considering other preemptive schemes despite the Bush regime’s obvious incompetence and corruption? When asking what this entity might be, I think we can safely rule out most Americans. This powerful entity must have a whole heap of influence over congress and the press as well.

Can you think of any country with a powerful lobby in the U.S. that is powerful enough to get “those two” to destroy Iraq, contemplate the obliteration of Iran with nukes and start WW III… or is that WW IV?

Mum’s the word. These days in polite society one does not name the entity that must not be named or question its actions. That’s too bad because a thorough going debate would be in everybody’s best interest. No, we must not name it even when everybody knows exactly what it is.

As long as Bush and Congress are in the thrall of the entity that must not be named, America will continue to rattle sabers at Iran. Congress will continue to be intimidated by something more influential than the American Public or the U.S. Constitution. There will be no withdrawal from Iraq, Bush and Cheney will not be impeached and the era of endless war will not end. One wonders if the rhetoric of fear is a ploy by “those two” to avoid a war crimes tribunal?

This cannot be allowed to continue.

What is at stake is not American security from terrorists. “Those two” have provided us with plenty of terror. What is at stake is our freedom.

And the last remaining tool to restore our freedom may be the U.S. Constitution’s trump card of impeachment provided by this little clause (Article II, section 4). The legal ability to remove a corrupt leader is the one thing that sets us apart from the citizens of, say, Zimbabwe.

Do you want to give up your freedom? Use it or lose it.

If ever there was a time for impeachment it is now. Without impeachment, the precedent set by Bush and Cheney will enable the next president to continue what “those two” have begun. And the Power of the People will be gone forever.

 

 

 

 

 

Iranian Threat– or being threatened

 

Nothing in the modern affairs of nations has been more exhaustively analyzed and debated than the utility and dangers of nuclear weapons, and yet the dangers posed by Iran with a bomb have been barely discussed. They are treated as a given. The core idea is that Iran cannot be trusted because the country is run by religious fanatics crazy enough to use a bomb if they had one. This is not the first time such arguments have been made. Some Americans, including Air Force generals, believed in the late 1940s that a preemptive war against the Soviet Union was justified by the peril of Moscow with a bomb. Twenty years later the Russians, in their turn, were so alarmed by the prospect of Beijing with a bomb that they quietly proposed to the Americans a joint effort to destroy the Chinese nuclear development effort with a preemptive attack.

The world’s experience with nuclear weapons to date has shown that nuclear powers do not use them, and they seriously threaten to use them only to deter attack. Britain, France, Russia, China, Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all acquired nuclear weapons in spite of international opposition. None has behaved recklessly with its new power. What changes is that nuclear powers have to be treated differently; in particular they cannot be casually threatened….

Official reluctance to spell out why Tehran more than other nations cannot be trusted with a bomb has been matched by reluctance to consider why Tehran might want one in the first place…..

What US officials say, when they say anything at all, is that Tehran wants a bomb in order to dominate the Persian Gulf region and to threaten its neighbors, especially Israel. This is a misreading of how other nuclear powers have made use of their weapons. As tools of coercive diplomacy nuclear weapons are almost entirely useless, but they are extremely effective in blocking large-scale or regime-threatening attack. There is no evidence that Iran has a different motive, and plenty of reason for Iran to fear that attack is a real possibility.

Indeed, the Bush administration, far from trying to quiet Iran’s fears, makes a point of confirming them every few months. These threats are not limited to words, but are supported with practical steps—the presence of large American armies just across Iran’s borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dispatch of the world’s largest fleet of warships to cruise along Iran’s Persian Gulf coastline. The Bush administration further accuses Iran of “meddling” in the affairs of its neighbors, of supplying weapons and training to Iraqis who kill Americans, and of being the world’s principal state sponsor of terrorism. Fear that Saddam Hussein might have provided nuclear weapons to terrorist groups was the leading American justification for the invasion of Iraq, and the same concern is often cited about Iran.

The seriousness of American threats is confirmed by the fact that no significant national leader in the United States has ever disowned or objected to them in clear, vigorous, principled language. It is as if the whole country listens to the administration’s threats with breath held, wondering if Bush and Cheney really mean to do as they say, and in effect leaving the decision entirely to them. Americans may count on the President to think twice, but why would leaders in Tehran, responsible for the lives of 70 million citizens, want to depend on President Bush’s restraint for their survival and safety? Bush has a history. On his own authority, without the sanction of any international body, he attacked Iraq five years ago and precipitated a bloody chain of events that shows no sign of ending. It would be natural, indeed inevitable, for any government in Tehran, seeing what has happened next door, to ask what could save Iran from a similar fate. An answer is not far to seek: nuclear weapons with a reliable delivery system could do that. But alas… as I found out in a recently ’sent to me’ DVD, The Arab neighbors of Iraq– are just waiting ‘until their Brothers call…’.

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch Redux: Holy Ghost Laughter

Everybody needs a little Holy Ghost Laughter.

Trading without beads–

Officials check on Freddie Mac securities sale

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Department officials are trying to make sure that Freddie Mac, one of two troubled U.S. giant mortgage firms, will be able sell $3 billion in securities this week at a previously scheduled sale, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
On Monday, Freddie Mac is due to sell the $3 billion of short-term debt in what will be a barometer of market appetite for the firm’s securities.
The Post said Treasury Department officials on Saturday spoke by telephone with major banks that normally purchase such securities to ensure that these firms still plan to place bids, and they were optimistic the sale would be a success.
Shares of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, companies that play a central role in U.S. housing markets, fell sharply this past week as fears mounted the two would not have enough capital to make it through the worst U.S. housing crisis since the Great Depression.
The shares are trading at a fraction of their value of a year ago.
The newspaper said that anything less than a successful sale of the securities would pose new questions about how far the federal government is willing to go to prop up Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and other faltering financial enterprises.
The companies on Friday said their finances were sound enough to withstand the housing crisis, and government officials scrambled to make public statements to restore confidence in them.
The Post said Treasury officials were considering several options if interest in the sale of Freddie Mac securities is lagging. In one possibility option, the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve would purchase the securities directly.
The newspaper said other possibilities are allowing the Federal Reserve Bank in New York to buy the debt indirectly through private brokers or asking private firms to purchase the debt while extending to them a public or private assurance that the government would back the securities if Freddie were ultimately unable to cover its obligations.
The $5.2 trillion in mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac dwarfs the size of the savings and loan institutions taken over by the federal government in the late 1980s or the big Japanese banks that required government assistance there in the 1990s.

ok kiddies… let us take a cleansing breath and clear our eyes and minds. Do you really think it is going to be an American Company or Corporation that is going to buy all the mortgage bonds?? …$3 billion in securities !!!!!!!! Come on…. Created crisis’s is our governments middle name. How else do you think we can begin to start paying off those we owe?? Why, by giving them our property to start with. I just can’t believe how quiet, divided and ignorant we as a people have allowed ourselves to become.
Again, … George sums it up– and I don’t mean Jr!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlXoIVLJWCY

Tishomingo Blues: A Centennial for Tishomingo, MS

Tishomingo, MS celebrated its centennial last week. It is the town next door to my home town and I have many good friends from there.

The town was named for a Chickasaw Indian Chief (his image is on the flag and Great Seal of the Chickasaw Nation), was commissioned by George Washington.

It is known for the State Park, Tishomingo State Park and the annual Dulcimer Festival. It has a rich heritage of hard working folks and living through many different hard times to survive 100 years. Good for you.

The thing that Tishomingo is associated with (even if you didn’t know it) is the theme song for Garrison Keillor’s ‘Prairie Hom Companion’ is Tishomingo Blues performed below by The Harlem Ramblers Dixieland Jazzband (who are actually from Zurich, but who’s keeping score?).

I have partied hard in Tishomingo (a one square mile town of about 400). And many times at Tishomingo State Park (a very cool place that has been dated for inhabitation back to around 6 or 7,000BC). Its hiking trails were recently voted the best in Mississippi.

I have spent countless hours as a youth canoing (very mild, but fun canoe trip down Bear Creek… which eventually ends up in the Tn River).

When we were around 16 or 17, several of us (Wade, Parsons, Bubba, Chuckles and myself) went down to canoe the creek and get on one. There was two to a canoe and one with the cooler (the rule is to NEVER turn over the cooler canoe… this could get your ass whipped). This was just as we were graduating (late spring) and it wasn’t quite hot and most mornings were still cool, so no one really wanted to go under. We, as Southern Gentlemen, had a truce that as long as there was beer in the cooler AND it was still cool, no hanky-panky.

But Chuckles lied to us. He had the cooler, but drank the last beer without telling anyone, acting as if there was more, so he started the shit. But he was out-numbered and as we figured out his ploy, we ganged up and flipped him into the ‘freezing’ water.

Eventually everyone ended in, but for some reason Chuckles was the only wearing a jock (we found this out as he climbed up onto the swinging rope wearing only a jock and commenced to prepare his Tarzan move).

The knot grabbed his cods as he went out and ripped his jock off (and we all thought his nuts went with it).

Needless to say, we just let him float away.

Congrats, Tishomingo. You made to B’Man’s Hometown Update (oh, and you are 100 years old… that’s nice).

Rednecks: Turn OFF That Damn TV

Because THIS is the kinda of shit that has brainwashed you:

h/t jperryam

I become livid when I listen to these assholes speak what can only be considered total bullshit.

But I bet there were thousands, if not millions who fall for this.

So, according to them, my $50K in credit card debt doesn’t really count. Good to know, but I’m sure Visa is going to be chapped.

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: The Good Samaritin