Stuff you may have missed

I keep saving little bits of tid to use on the blog and then I manage to let it go because more timely things come up. Please allow me to clear my saved browsers and hit you with some knowledge about, well, how deranged the Right is in this country and this state.

First, everyone should read this op-ed by Neal Gabler, "Politics as Religion in America," from the October 2 Los Angeles Times. In it, Gabler neatly deconstructs why the wingnuts continue to push their destructive agenda even in the face of all factual evidence and sense to the contrary: they don't see it as politics anymore, but as a religion -- they believe the things Rush and Glenn and Sean and related gasbags say as a matter of blind faith:

When politics becomes religion, however, policy too becomes a matter of life and death, as we have all seen.

That is one reason our founding fathers opted for a separation of church and state. They recognized that religion and politics could coexist only when they occupied different domains. Most denominations, which preach and practice tolerance, have rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Religious groups may have found a community of interest with a political party to further their aims; they have not, by and large, sought to convert the political system into a religious one. Until now.

The tea-baggers who hate President Obama with a fervor that is beyond politics; the fear-mongers who warn that Obama is another Hitler or Stalin; the wannabe storm troopers who brandish their guns and warn darkly of the president's demise; the cable and talk-radio blowhards who make a living out of demonizing Obama and tarring liberals as America-haters -- these people are not just exercising their rights within the political system. They honestly believe that the political system -- a system that elected Obama -- is broken and only can be fixed by substituting their certainty for the uncertainties of American politics.

As we are sadly discovering, this minority cannot be headed off, which is most likely why conservatism transmogrified from politics to a religion in the first place. Conservatives who sincerely believed that theirs is the only true and right path have come to realize that political tolerance is no match for religious vehemence.

So, no, it's not you. They really don't care that facts have a liberal bias. They'd rather believe their High Priests of Prevarication.

Meanwhile, here in America's Wang™, our old friend Jeb! Bush recently threw a little hissy fit because those mean American people keep picking on his big brother and they should just stop because he's been out of office for a whole 8½ months (or, as Fox News douchebag host Brian Kilmeade distorted said, "ten months" (emphasis added)):

KILMEADE: It’s been 10 months. Should Leader Hoyer be looking backwards, and is he accurate?

BUSH: I was on the plane coming up to Washington yesterday, and I heard someone complaining that their child’s acne was because of George Bush. Of course, last week the Olympics didn’t come to Chicago — that was my brother’s fault. And at some point, people are going to have to put on their big-boy pants and assume responsibility for the great challenges and opportunities our country has. I don’t know how much longer leaders — responsible leaders in Congress — can continue to say these things.

Well, Jeb!, excuuuuuuuse us if it takes longer than 8½ months to undo the eight disastrous years your brother had to fuck things up. I mean, think of it like the eight years you had to drive Florida into the ground, except we still have to wait another year-plus before our cleanup crew (led by Alex Sink) can get to work. It takes a while, y'know?

No, Jeb!, I guess you wouldn't know. Seriously, it's unconscionable to hear the same people whine "why hasn't Obama fixed the economy yet?" (or whatever the issue may be) and in the next breath speculate whether the Dow Jones hitting 10,000 is indicative of a "Bush recovery." You can't have it both ways, folks.

But it sure is hard to dissuade the religious zealots of the Church of Batshit Crazy.

A representative sample of the right-wing response to President Obama's speech today

Yeah, I'd say that pretty much sums up the deranged wingnuttery leading up to today's speech. But now that it's over, I only have one question: Is our children socialist?

(Video by Mark, who was a high school classmate of mine. And, yes, he is being satirical.)

Obama's speech to kids: the financial burden of the protests

With all the furor about the president's speech to schoolchildren next week, it's easy to lose sight of very basic issues that ought to be taken into account as many schools and districts, regrettably, decide not to broadcast the speech to their students. Sure, the political controversy is important, and the precedent such censorship sets is absolutely abhorrent, but there is a simple reason why those schools and districts are doing a great disservice to their students and parents: the real economic cost of boycotting the speech.

At least among those districts, like Palm Beach County, where the speech will be shown but parents can "opt out," or in other places where organized "keep your kid home from school" protests are taking place, what really is happening, as Momocrats blogger Cynematic points out, is a "one-day systematic de-funding of your public schools and mine."

[The boycott is] promoted by childless right-wing white guys (Beck, Hannity) who apparently are anti-education.

All because some grown ups acting more like babies have lost sight of the common good. Have decided that the Party of No comes before country, or anyone else. Including their neighbors. Including your kids.

So keep that in mind. The kid who sits out of public school on September 8 just took money out of the public pot that all his or her schoolmates use.

Parents who vehemently disagree with what the school curriculum can ALWAYS teach their own values at home. Everyone has that right, if not obligation.

But since when did they start messing with the quality of your kid's education? All those $47/days lost to your school start adding up. Music classes or school supplies, band uniforms or special field trips that are already imperiled because of school budget cuts--and now you'll have to make up the difference, somehow, because someone wants to make a statement.

Your neighbor, your kid's friend's parent, the other people at your school are gonna do you like that?

Illuminating, isn't it?

Spot on, Cynematic.

It's disgusting to me that this is even happening, but it's even worse when you consider the damage to every school system and every school, just because a few wild-eyed wingnut fanatics (several of whom happen to have a national forum through TV or radio) hate the president SOOOOOO much that they would push for this "boycott." It didn't happen with Reagan, it didn't happen with Bush 41, it wouldn't have happened with McCain, but it's happening now.

I can't help but marvel, too, at the irony of parents who will keep their children home from public, government-provided schools because they fear some "socialist" message will be transmitted ... maybe by backwards-masking, blinked Morse code, whatever, I don't know. I've already demonstrated that not only will the president not deliver a socialist message, but he's not even a socialist. But try telling that to the people who have been marinating in the constant anti-American drumbeat from the Becks and Limbaughs of the world.

Maybe those districts that are refusing to show the speech altogether, like Collier and Lee counties in southwest Florida, ought to forgo their federal funding from here on out, since clearly they don't have any need for the federal government. (But I guess that would amount to coercion to broadcast the speech, and we certainly wouldn't want to force anyone to listen to the president!)

Look, I know I can't very well wax indignant about disrespect to the president, because this blog hardly has been respectful to President Obama's predecessor. But I never would have told my son (or my daughter, although she was too young for school when Drunky McStagger was in the White House) that they shouldn't listen to a speech from the president. All parents who keep their children home on Tuesday, and even those who "opt out" and have their kids in some alternative activity during the speech, are delivering a chilling message: education doesn't matter, and the president of the United States ought to be shunned.

And, ultimately, that hurts all of us.

Four years: another perspective

Not only do we always need to remember what happened to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast on this day in 2005, I think it's important to recall what the president was doing on that very day ... and with whom:

President George W. Bush joins Arizona Senator John McCain in a small celebration of McCain's 69th birthday Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, after the President's arrival at Luke Air Force Base near Phoenix. The President later spoke about Medicare to 400 guests at the Pueblo El Mirage RV Resort and Country Club in nearby El Mirage. White House photo by Paul Morse

Disgusting, despicable, and quite likely criminal.

Deconstructing the wingnut view of health care reform

It's interesting sometimes, in limited doses, to see what the other side thinks about certain issues. Of course, usually it's very clear and you don't have to read any of the hate-driven garbage: you know, "Sotomayor bad, Buchanan good" or "Where's the birth certificate?" or "Don't tax me, bro!" But on an issue as complex as health care reform, even though it has the wingnuts in a tizzy, it's important to show them just where they are wrong in their analysis. And, naturally, they're wrong a lot.

I don't even mean this in terms of the standard GOP "I've got mine, screw you" mentality, the endemic selfishness that ultimately drives nearly all American conservatives today. Rather, I want to point out the inherent flaws in the argument from the Right, and to do so, I'll go to a part of Florida Blast Off! rarely covers: the largely wealthy, über-Republican southwest -- specifically Naples.

Today's example of wingnuttery from southwest Florida comes from Naples Daily News columnist Ed Farmer (left), who is trying to show us that he really doesn't agree with the fringe nutjobs who, driven nearly insane by the idea of a black president!!!!1!!eleven!!, are shouting down members of Congress at all these health care town halls -- honest, he doesn't! But, naturally, he's not very convincing.

They’re not throwing rotten vegetables at those town meetings about health care, are they?

They’re not throwing punches like members of the Japanese parliament, are they?

They’re not carrying swastikas, as the ever-embarrassing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed, are they?

And they’re not breaking the noses of town meeting moderators, the way a guy throwing a folding chair did to Geraldo Rivera on his TV talk show 20 years ago, are they? OK, forget this example.

Better yet, let's forget all those examples, Ed, because they all suck and they all miss the point. For starters, just because they're not throwing rotten vegetables or punches yet doesn't mean they won't. For Jeebus' sake, Ed, a guy in New Hampshire was openly carrying a pistol outside the president's town hall meeting just this week! Rotten vegetables are a convenient strawman, sure, but they kind of pale in comparison to bullets.

And as for your statement about Speaker Pelosi, Ed, well, you're just flat out wrong (nice respect for the speaker, by the way ... shouldn't you be embarrassed about your mistake?). Do you even do the slightest amount of fact-checking? Nazi imagery has been spotted at numerous town hall meetings, including swastikas. And even if you say, well, that one swastika (in Fort Collins, Colo.) had a circle and line through it, as if to say "No Nazis," first, the image was still there, and second, think less literally about swastikas -- maybe you'd prefer the picture (shown here, as seen on CNN) of President Obama with a Hitler mustache, displayed at a Michigan town hall. Face it, Ed: you blew it.

I have neither the time nor the energy to take apart the entire column, although it would be remarkably easy to do so. But I'll just make a couple of other points, Ed. You say:

Many Americans fear having the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors. When the president made a reference to an elderly person just being given a pain pill rather than a state-of-the-art treatment, the remark scared some people. Their blood pressures rise when Pelosi talks about mobs and labels big insurance companies as immoral villains.

Ah, yes, a variation on the old "Many people say ..." canard. "Many people" (like, maybe, seven) also say that Ashton Kutcher is the greatest actor who ever lived, but that doesn't make it true.

Anyway, first of all, big insurance companies are immoral villains, Ed. We can argue about that another time, because I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But your first sentence there, about "the federal government making life-changing health care decisions rather than their own doctors," well, again, it's just flat out wrong. Doctors aren't making those decisions now, Ed -- insurance companies are! Surely you're not so naïve that you didn't know that?! And they're doing a piss-poor job of it, too. Under the president's plan, the government will have no more say in health care decisions than insurance companies have now, and indeed, it's likely to be a lot less. Get your facts straight, Ed, because until you do, you're just embarrassing yourself and your newspaper.

And finally, the whole idea of that frightening, big, scary federal government taking over, well, that just chaps you and your fellow wingnuts, doesn't it, Ed? But look at it this way: the government can't possibly do health care (or, really, anything else) worse than the private sector has. Let me be blunt: you had your chance with privatization when the Bush crime syndicate was in charge. And it was a colossal failure. The subprime mess, skyrocketing government spending, damage to the environment, and, yes, shitty health care all were results of deregulation under Drunky McStagger, and we're paying the price for it today. Hell, yes, I trust the government more than I do a bunch of insurance companies to make decisions on funding health care, and you know what else? I would be willing to pay more in taxes, even though I have health insurance, to let those less fortunate have health coverage as well. But I know you wingnuts don't do compassion ....

Anyway, Ed, thanks for the entertainment, but if you're going to come to the ballpark (to extend the metaphor in your column) on health care reform, you need to bring more than a Wiffle bat.

Florida GOP Police Blotter #12: Longtime Republican operative sentenced for corruption

It's been a while since we've had an addition to the Florida GOP Police Blotter. But this one has special significance to me personally, as well as to all my pals in my old stomping grounds down in America's Glans™.

As a former resident of Palm Beach County, I'd followed the saga of one-time County Commissioner Mary McCarty with somewhat detached interest. She had been on trial for, and subsequently was convicted of, federal fraud charges arising out of her activity while in office, which may have been blogworthy in and of itself.

Well, today McCarty was sentenced to 42 months in the slammer -- the federal prison, that is. Fair enough, I suppose. But if I'd dug down a little deeper before, I would have watched (and covered) the case far more closely, given her background and experience.

You see, it turns out McCarty is -- you guessed it -- a staunch and active wingnut Republican. Just take a look at part of her pre-incarceration résumé:

1998: Is Jeb Bush’s regional campaign chairwoman in his gubernatorial bid.

March 1999: Forms an exploratory committee looking at the possibility of a congressional bid.

December 1999: With her husband, Kevin, is named a chair of George W. Bush’s presidential campaign in Florida.

November 2000: Allows two dozen Republican operatives [to] turn her commission office into a makeshift war room and watch the 2000 manual recount on closed-circuit television.

December 2000: Is elected chairwoman of the county’s Republican Party.

As I keep saying, I realize that corruption and malfeasance in office are not unique to the Republican Party. But, boy, it sure seems to follow that party around far more than the Democrats -- especially in Florida.

Oh, it gets better: McCarty's aforementioned husband Kevin, co-chair of Drunky McStagger's 2000 campaign in Florida, already is in prison for his role in covering up his wife's misdeeds. Heckuva job, Kevy.

Well, good luck in prison, Mary, and in getting help for the undisclosed substance abuse your attorney revealed today in asking for you to be placed at a specific federal facility in Texas. You say you're "humbled." Well, around here, you're just another name in the long list of corrupt Republicans. Welcome to the club.

Jefferson-Jackson Dinner 2009: liveblogging, page 1

Interestingly, the pastor giving the invocation tonight said, "Only in America can the son of a black man and a white woman grow up to become president of America." Um, well, yeah, that's true.

"Isn't it nice we have a president that we can be proud of?" -- Sen. Nelson

Next, Sen. Nelson introduces the chair of the Florida Democratic Party, Karen Thurman. She just recognized "the next government CFO Alex Sink." I don't think that's what she meant to say, though.

"Last year, we worked to unite our party and focus our efforts on electing Barack Obama. Look what we accomplished: we delivered Florida's 27 electoral votes to Obama/Biden, we defeated two incumbent GOP members of Congress, and now we're focusing on local elections."

We have our first mention of "George W. Bush." No booing. At least not audibly. Thurman goes on to say we are working to "drain the swamp of Republican corruption." I think she's lost her audience, though. The talking in the room is pretty distracting, actually.

(Incidentally, forget about pictures from this event. I'm situated just way too far back. Sorry.)

The most important decision(s) Barack Obama will ever make

Perhaps my judgment is skewed by the fact that I am a recovering (for now) attorney and an amateur constitutional law scholar. But to me, there is no disputing the fact that President Obama's most important decision -- or decisions, given the likelihood that he will face more than one such choice -- will be his nominee(s) to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This conclusion is borne out by a rather lengthy but extraordinarily insightful profile of Chief Justice John Roberts, written by Jeffrey Toobin and published in the May 25 issue of The New Yorker. Titled "No More Mr. Nice Guy" and identifying the Chief Justice as the Court's "stealth hard-liner," the profile reveals a jurist who is motivated by ideology to a far greater degree than even a knowledgeable observer might presume, surely more so than he let on during his confirmation hearings before the U.S. Senate. Toobin puts it this way:

Roberts’s hard-edged performance at oral argument offers more than just a rhetorical contrast to the rendering of himself that he presented at his confirmation hearing. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said at the time. “Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.” His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

This, then, is the challenge facing President Obama today. At 55, Roberts is likely to serve for decades as chief justice, all but certainly staying on the bench long after the Obama administration is over. Roberts' influence, as the Toobin piece clearly demonstrates, goes beyond simple mathematics, as in whether or not he votes with the majority or the minority: being chief justice, he has a singular opportunity to shape the Court in his own image through his style, his demeanor, and even through something as mundane as the opinion-writing assignments for which he is responsible. The problem, as Toobin goes on to explain, is that Roberts' "image," such as it is, necessarily bears the imprint of the president who appointed him:

Two days after the argument in the Voting Rights Act case, David H. Souter announced his resignation, giving President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a Justice to the Court. The first Democratic nominee to the Court in fifteen years will confront what is now, increasingly, John Roberts’s Court. Along with Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and (usually) Anthony Kennedy, the majority of the Court is moving right as the rest of the country—or, at least, the rest of the federal government—is moving left. At this low moment in the historical reputation of George W. Bush, his nominee for Chief Justice stands in signal contrast to what appears today to be a failed and fading tenure as President. Roberts’s service on the Court, which is, of course, likely to continue for decades, offers an enduring and faithful reflection of the Bush Presidency.

Even as a practicing attorney, writes Toobin, Roberts was accustomed to "representing the interests of corporate defendants who were sued by individuals." Then-Senator Obama, in speaking against Roberts' nomination in 2005, noted this as well: "It is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak." This strikes very close to my own heart, as a former insurance defense attorney who left the practice of law in 1996 having grown increasingly disillusioned with representing corporate behemoths in actions against individuals who regularly if not always actually deserved compensation from those corporations.

I believe that one of the signal differences between liberals and conservatives -- or, if you must, Democrats and Republicans, although I find the parties' ideological consistency on this rather inconsistent at best -- is the degree to which they defend the rights of the individual. John Roberts, like his erstwhile mentor and employer Ronald Reagan (and, of course, like the president who appointed him to his current position), evidently lacks empathy with the plight of the average American in many -- probably most -- instances. This trait, unfortunately, is shared by the other hyper-conservatives on the Court -- Scalia, Thomas, and Alito -- and it has led, with the addition of Justice Anthony Kennedy to that right-wing group, to a series of rulings that favor Big Business, bolster executive authority, and marginalize the powerless in exactly the arena where the powerless ought to be able to count on the most deference.

In short, Lady Justice seems to have been peering through her blindfold for most of the last decade. She is no longer blind, and the judiciary has become anything but apolitical. As a result, I do not think it hyperbole to declare that it will be up to President Obama to restore empathy and realism to American jurisprudence ... and he must start with his first appointment.

Notre Dame and Obama: a hypocritical fiasco

Today, President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. One of the largest and arguably most prestigious Catholic universities in the country, Notre Dame has been plagued with protests ever since they announced that the president would appear; the protests have thrown the somewhat dormant issue of abortion and a woman's right to choose into the limelight yet again. Former ambassador and Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon even declined a major award from Notre Dame, the Laetere Medal, over the controversy; she is the first honoree in over a century to decline.

I don't have a problem with people expressing dismay over Obama's invitation, nor even the idea of someone choosing to reject an award rather than accept the well-deserved honor from the university. After all, in America we are free to dissent and protest and say our piece no matter what the viewpoint. However, I do find it rather curious that those who insisted we "honor the president" or "honor the office, even if you don't respect the man" during the Bush crime syndicate's reign of malfeasance seem to have changed their tune now.

What happened to respecting the president? Why is it different now that Obama is in the White House rather than Bush? Why is it acceptable now to claim that we have "different" presidents, when it was considered treasonous by many to utter such beliefs during most of this decade?

Wait ... I think I know the answer to those questions ....

The big question: will wingnuts who benefit from stimulus money still hate Obama?

Florida governor and now U.S. Senate candidate Charlie Crist (R-Coppertone) took a lot of heat from the more conservative side of his party when he bucked the trend of GOP governors in neighboring states (like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Mississippi's Haley Barbour) and welcomed with open arms the federal stimulus money offered to Florida through President Obama's economic recovery program. What this has done in part, though, is save a number of jobs in various areas of state government, including K-12 education.

So, naturally, I'm interested to see whether the wingnuts who (as I know from personal experience and observation) make up a significant majority of teachers in, say, Santa Rosa County, might change their minds a bit about the Evils of Obama. My prediction: nope, not a chance.

Seriously, though, what's a wingnut teacher to do? I mean, imagine that you're a typical teacher* in America's Taint™. You voted for (and quite possibly campaigned on your own time for) McCain and you hate Obama because he's a socialist (and, in some cases, because of his race). You would have gone to the tea parties if you could have gotten the day off work. You've established an entire career based on earning government money (from the taxpayers) but you nevertheless think taxation is evil and everything ought to be privatized.

But you were going to be laid off thanks to severe budget cuts in your county ... until the $1.8 billion of stinulus money to Florida for education came through. Suddenly millions of dollars were directed to your county, and your job is going to be saved ... thanks to the Obama administration! (Recall that the Bush crime syndicate's proposed stimulus would have directed the vast majority of funding to Wall Street and other corporations to prop up the failed theory of "supply-side" or "trickle-down" economics ... so, under Bush, no job for you.) More than 50 such jobs are being restored in Santa Rosa County alone**.

"By and large, this is great news because we are saving some jobs and adding some jobs," said Ed Gray, board chairman. "But it can easily be misinterpreted as we are creating positions we should not be or saving jobs we should not be. What we have before us is what the law requires."

Board members have approved cutting 260 teacher and 103 educational support positions. They will receive a revised staffing plan at the May 21 meeting.

The district has yet to receive its stimulus money but it is expected this month, said Doug Dillon, assistant superintendent for finance.

Stimulus funding is only for two years, and there are strict guidelines on how it can be used, said Superintendent Tim Wyrosdick.

"We are not being given millions of dollars to do with as we want to," he said.

Santa Rosa has about 500 annual contract teachers — those with three years or less experience — waiting to learn if they will be rehired.

"The decisions will be made by principals based on the needs of their schools," said Lewis Lynn, assistant superintendent for human resources.

Well, I've got to hand it to Ed Gray, board chairman: at least he's being more or less ideologically consistent by saying, basically, "yeah, we're taking federal money, but only because we have to, not because we want to." But, then again, we're not talking about Mr. Gray's job here; if he wants to continue to be wingnutty, he can do so without hypocrisy in this instance.

But what about you, Mr./Ms. Laid Off Wingnut Teacher? Are you going to embrace the Obama stimulus and denounce the archaic, destructive economic policies of the Bush crime syndicate that got us into this mess in the first place? Like I said above: I think I already know the answer to that question.

---

* Not all teachers are like this. But most are. Trust me.

** This isn't anywhere near enough for all the cut jobs to be saved. But it's better than nothing ...

More proof that Republicans want people to be dumb and stay dumb

Yes, we know that the Republican Party, especially here in Florida, wants people to have as little education and exposure to information (beyond the propaganda on Fox News) as possible. But rarely is it stated so bluntly.

I was reading an obituary of former GOP congressman and vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp this morning when the following passage struck me:

But despite [Kemp's] looks and charisma, he did poorly on the national stage. His economic concepts, which he sold on the stump with the zeal of a fundamentalist preacher, seemed wonkish and failed to convert voters. His campaign style was seen as undisciplined and impatient. Political analysts saw him as unwilling to play politics in a manner what would bring victory at the polls.

"If I could remove two-thirds of your knowledge and three-fourths of your vocabulary, I could make you into a decent candidate," veteran Republican consultant Edward J. Rollins recalled telling him.

Well, there it is. Sure, you have to know how to "play politics" to some extent, but President Obama proved during his campaign that you don't have to talk down to the American people to be successful at the polls. Republicans, on the other hand, as Ed Rollins so cogently stated, would rather have their candidates, like their voters, largely devoid of knowledge, intelligence, and curiosity.

Okay, GOP, now that you've had your proudly uncurious, knowledge-free president, how did that work out for America? I'll answer my own question with three words: Worst. President. Ever.

Get your official Illinois Obama license plates while they last

This is pretty cool. I am, or have been in the past, a collector of license plates. While my collection is modest at best, I've always been kind of fascinated by them, all the way back to childhood.

So it's cool to see that Illinois had offered temporary, but legal, commemorative plates for their native son, President Obama. And now that they've expired, they're being offered to the general public as well.

click on image to order

They tell me over at The Political Carnival that commemorative sales are setting records, so get yours while supplies last. They're $50 for a set of two, but the coolest thing is that $35 of that is a tax-deductible contribution to the Illinois Library Association.

Now to look for that commemorative Texas plate for Drunky McStagger ...

Blog Against Theocracy 2009: An introduction

Once again this year, I am pleased to join with a multitude of other bloggers from across the United States and around the world in the "Blog Against Theocracy" blogswarm. This is my third opportunity to participate in BAT, having done so each of the last two years, but it's going to be a different experience this year, I think. Not only have my personal circumstances changed, as I will share with you briefly on Sunday, but of course there is a new president and with that, some different viewpoints on the role of religion in American government and society.

Naturally, even though the Bush crime syndicate and its overt strides towards an American theocracy are in the past, things haven't changed nearly as much as I would like. As I said in last year's BAT introduction, "I have no particular problem with people practicing their faith, but I am vehemently, unalterably, inexorably opposed to its infiltration of and influence on American government today." Unfortunately, the Obama administration seems unwilling at this time to cut the unconstitutional ties between government and religion completely, for example, retaining Bush's Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, which I believe has absolutely no place in our federal bureaucracy. On the other hand, Obama has signaled some movement away from theocracy with his enlightened stem cell research policies, his recognition of the GLBT community, and other such positions that would have been anathema to his predecessor's theocratic administration.

My point is that the change in the White House doesn't mean we can let down our guard against efforts to create an American theocracy. Indeed, as we've seen just this week with the new Christian-based hate groups emerging, those who would foist a particular set of religious beliefs on the nation as a whole are if anything growing louder and more insistent. And of course, despite some positive changes on the federal level, we here in Florida still struggle with a hyperfundamentalist, über-Christianist faction that wants nothing more than to turn our state -- and our country, if they could -- into a frothing-at-the-mouth radical theocracy.

So our work as progressives, and as defenders of the Constitution, is not done -- not by a long shot. Perhaps with this blogswarm and the combined voices of some of the best writers and thinkers the blogosphere has to offer, we can encourage those at all levels of government who want to obey the Constitution by enforcing a clearly delineated separation of church and state.

Please visit Blast Off! and of course the main BAT site, which is collecting and linking to all participants' posts, regularly throughout the weekend for all the Blog Against Theocracy goodness.

---

Blast Off!'s BAT posts from 2007 and 2008 are available at this link, although you will have to scroll down past the 2009 posts; sorry for the inconvenience. But if you'd like a retrospective of sorts, well, there it is.

One personal note: special thanks to Blue Gal, who is kind of the chief organizer and bottle-washer of this effort, and to Tengrain of Mock, Paper, Scissors for yet another kick-ass BAT logo (above).

It ... is ... ALIVE!

For once, the fetid stench you might be noticing from Jacksonville isn't the river or the paper mills ... no, it's because Drunky McStagger is visiting today.

Former President George W. Bush is in Jacksonville for a private luncheon and to thank local Republicans for their support.

A spokeswoman for the Duval County Republican Party, Donna Barrow, says the event is not a party-sponsored event, but says Bush will speak on the economy and progress being made on his presidential library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

She says, “Jacksonville is Bush Country.”

No, of course the Republican Party has nothing to do with the visit. How silly of me to suppose otherwise ...

"Jacksonville is Bush Country." Lovely. Hitch your wagon to the former president ... the worst ever. That's one shrewd political maneuver right there. It's like saying "Vladivostok is Stalin Country."

What's Drunky saying about the presidential library (or as he would say, "liberry")? That the Cheney Memorial Dungeon is coming along nicely? Or that he hasn't quite finished coloring all the books yet?

Sounds like a good day to stay away from Jax ...

A forgotten anniversary

Today marks six years since the illegal and unnecessary American invasion and occupation of Iraq began. I can't help but wonder, though, whether this anniversary has been forgotten somehow amidst the noise and waste of the nation's economic woes, the new administration in the White House, and the riveting drama that is American Idol.

Seriously, though, what a difference a year makes. A year ago on this date, there were blogswarms and expressions of outrage ... this year, sure, there are some blogs paying attention, but I just don't think it's making as big of an impact as it has in recent years.

Is it really as simple as the distraction of the economy? Or is it, as I believe, some kind of false sense of security because our new president is perceived to be more sympathetic to the anti-war cause than was his predecessor?

The fact is that there's really no reason to be any more complacent, nor any more optimistic, then we were when the Bush crime syndicate was in charge. President Obama already has backed down from his campaign pledge to have combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months, extending that deadline by what initially appears to be a relatively inconsequential three months. However, he added that under his plan, there will be some 50,000 "noncombat" troops who will remain after August 2010 ... 50,000 Americans who will remain in a hostile environment to whom the term "noncombat" no doubt will seem hollow indeed.

We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, and there is no longer any question (if there ever was any legitimate controversy) that we went there under false pretenses. And while I recognize that an abrupt pull-out is militarily and politically imprudent, I believe that any ongoing American presence in Iraq reinforces and exacerbates the original mistake.

We should be out -- completely -- as soon as possible. We should not be finding vague excuses to extend our occupation of Iraq, putting American lives (and others) in continued danger and contributing to -- nay, creating -- a far more unstable Middle East than would have existed had we not intervened militarily. And we should be remembering, on this somber anniversary, the lives already lost and the reasons we worked so hard to put Barack Obama in the White House.

Do you remember, Mr. President?

(cross-posted at Pax Americana)

I'll have what Cheney's smoking

Yes, it's predictable, but it's still fit for laughing-and-pointing at the silliness.

Dick "Dick" Cheney says don't blame the Bush crime syndicate* for the country's economic mess:

President Barack Obama constantly talks about the enormous economic troubles that he inherited when he took office in January. Cheney agrees that Obama did indeed come into power amid very difficult economic circumstances.

But Cheney says he doesn’t think the Bush administration can be blamed for creating the economic woes. Cheney says it’s a global financial problem. He says the idea that fault can be assigned to the previous administration is “interesting rhetoric” but he doesn’t think people care about that.

No, "Dick," no one cares why we're in the shitter financially. Of course not. They certainly didn't seem to care on November 4, 2008, did they? They obviously didn't care that Cheney's Gang was handing billions of dollars to the corporate CEOs who supported them through thick and thin (mostly thin). Nope, you've got us there, "Dick," old chum.

Why is Cheney even relevant anymore? Can't he just wheel off into oblivion where he belongs?

By the way, I had to laugh at the juxtaposition of the ads on the article (highlighted below). They seem so ... fitting.

Click image for full-size version

---

* No, he didn't say "crime syndicate;" those are my words. But he should have, to be factually precise.

Then again, when has "Dick" ever been factually precise?

Today's sign of the apocalypse

With apologies to Sports Illustrated, the originator of the weekly "Sign of the Apocalypse," I really can't think of a more apt title for this post ... but have you ever heard of Affluence.org? Basically, it's Facebook for the obscenely wealthy -- and they don't try to hide their mission at all, as their entry page attests:

Pretty blatant, eh? If you make less than $300K or you're worth less than $3 mil, don't even bother to apply ... well, unless you can bring us five of those people! But you can apply for free -- proving that irony not only is not dead, it's jumping and skipping with glee.

Anyway, if you aren't convinced yet, just look at all you can do with your membership!

Yeah, I know these folks have every right to network online, but in light of the current dire economic straits that we face in America today, this seems to be a particularly inappropriate time to have something like this going on ... it's almost as though they're celebrating their largesse and throwing it in the faces of the rest of us.

Still, that's pretty much characteristic of Drunky McStagger's base, as he so gleefully reminded us by his notorious "haves and have-mores" remark. Really, the site ought to be called Effluent.org* ...

---

* effluent (ěf'loo-ənt)

Adjective

Flowing out or forth.

Noun

1. A stream flowing out of a body of water.
2. An outflow or discharge of liquid waste, as from a sewage system, factory, or nuclear plant.

I don't get it

Okay, fine. I've given this a lot of thought, but at the end of the day, I'm forced to admit: I just don't get it.*

I don't get why Republicans think that tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, are supposed to be good for the economy when what it really needs is a significant infusion of revenue.

I don't get how they can blame Clinton, Obama, and pretty much everyone but the true culprit – Bush and his policies – for the nation's current economic woes.

I don't get why deregulation is so great; it didn't work for the last eight years, while the “invisible hand of the free market” was too busy jerking itself off to anticipate the predictable greed and ruthlessness of the billionaires who ran the biggest banking and investment firms.

I don't get why government is bad, except when it's poking into our bedrooms or women's bodies, or maybe when it's putting out house fires or arresting criminals.

Speaking of criminals, I don't get how Republicans can celebrate the “greatness” of George W. Bush, who had the last, best chance of preventing 9/11 and whose laissez-faire economic policies drove the American economy, while condemning Bill Clinton for getting a blow job in the White House. Even if Clinton lied about it under oath, is that really worse than lying before Congress and the country about the existence of WMDs in order to foment an illegal (and poorly managed) war?

I don't get why Republicans so vehemently oppose providing all Americans with access to health care, thereby bringing us in line with every other industrialized nation in the world. Are they that selfish that they don't care about those too poor to afford decent health care for themselves and their families?

I don't get why Republicans are so disproportionately involved in political corruption and sexual scandal, but still they're the “family values” party.

I don't get why Republicans believe a perpetual state of war is preferable to a perpetual state of peace.

I don't get how anyone can argue against the premise that the best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

I don't get what is so great about owning guns that, led by the NRA, they'll fight against even reasonable efforts to restrict access to assault weapons and the like.

I don't get why Republicans seem so intent on destroying public education.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand about "separation of church and state."

I don't get why those with the least income and education so overwhelmingly vote Republican when it is so obviously, so clearly against their interests to do so.

There's a lot more I don't get, but I think that about does it for now. Maybe someone can shed some light on it for me.

---

* Yes, I know this is all generalization, but if you're troubled by that, just substitute "so many Republicans" or "most Republicans" or something like that. Thanks in advance for not hammering me on that minute point.

Science finally wins: Obama to repeal stem cell ban

Now this is why we elected President Obama.

President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.

Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama's eagerly anticipated campaign promises.

The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place -- lines that scientists and patient advocate say hold great hope for leading to cures for a host of major ailments.

[...]

President Bush imposed the restriction on Aug. 9, 2001, limiting federal funding to studies of what turned out to be 21 cell lines that were already in existence as of that date to prevent tax dollars from encouraging the destruction of more embryos.

The limitation, welcomed by those who believe that destroying human embryos is immoral, has been denounced by many scientists for severely hindering research one of the most promising fields of biomedical research.

The 21 cell lines that scientists have been permitted to study under the Bush policy have a variety of shortcomings, critics say. Many, for example, may have defects that could make them dangerous to transplant into people. But perhaps more important, hundreds of newer lines have been developed that offer a host of opportunities. Many lines, for example, carry defects for specific diseases.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Mr. President! For far too long, thanks to Drunky McStagger's 2001 executive order, the fundamentalist whackjobs have controlled Washington and prevented even the exploration of scientific advances that would help people, not just here in America but all over the world.

No one is going to be "harvesting" embryos for research, folks, so all you religious crazies can just get over it. I don't care if you oppose abortion -- just know that you can't impose your extremist views on the U.S. government any longer.

Ignorance, thy name is Bush

With all the hammering at this sucky blog on Jeb! Bush and his older, even dumber brother, Drunky McStagger, seldom do we have an opportunity to pick on another member of the Bush klan clan*. Yet here's a great chance for a double play, as Jeb!'s son George P. Bush proves not only how stupid he is, but how delusional Republicans are in general.

The other day, George P. spoke to the Hitler Youth's Young Republican National Federation's convention in Orlando, and he expressed disdain for Gov. Charlie Crist's support of the Obama stimulus package recently passed by Congress:

"There's some in our party that want to assume that government is the answer to all of our problems," Bush said. "I'm not going to name any names."

But he said in Florida, there were Republicans who have endorsed the recent $787 billion stimulus plan that Democratic President Barack Obama signed into law. Bush was referring to Republican Crist, who lobbied hard for the bill, including an appearance with Obama in Fort Myers.

"You know who I'm talking about," Bush said, as the crowd attending the Young Republican National Federation murmured and laughed a little tensely. "That's problematic. We as conservatives have to ultimately balance the federal government's checkbook."

For some reason, thinking of George P. saying "You know who I'm talking about" reminds me of a movie quote ...

You know what he's talking about!

Anyway, the truly idiotic statement by GPB is that conservatives will "balance the federal government's checkbook." Perhaps, George, you were getting into your sister's stash during your uncle's reign of terror in the White House (not to mention Dad's governorship), but 21st Century Republicans are about as far from "conservative" as you can get. The profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts of the Bush crime syndicate have gotten us squarely into the fiscal mess in which we find ourselves today, both as a nation and in Florida. Yes, George, it was your uncle who took the country from a budget surplus to a trillion-dollar deficit. Conservative? Not hardly ...

So don't tell me about balancing the checkbook, Georgie, because you don't know the first thing about that. You know what I'm talking about?

---

* Well, except for Noelle Bush, Jeb!'s daughter, and her issues with drugs.