Last-Minute Heads-Up - I'm Running To Be An Obama Delegate!

Hello from Crazy-Land! I have been so completely slammed this week that I forgot to mention that I'm running to be an Obama delegate tomorrow. I'm finishing up the final editing of my book with my editor, and we're planning to be all done by Monday night - then, off it goes to be published! Plus, I'm back at work - I had to write a brand-new curriculum for my 'Keyboards for Singers' class last week - I think it's turning into a book too! And my husband is out of town making his rounds in Nashville, so I've got the kids by myself (although I have to say that this weekend they have been awesome - my big son is taking care of the littles and they're all cleaning the house and are going to have a movie party at home tonight while I'm out at a gig. Oh, yes - did I leave that out? I also have a gig tonight an hour away in Moorpark, which means I'll get home at 2:30 or 3:00 in the morning.

I've never done anything like this before, and I may never again. I signed up for the caucus in January, not thinking much about it, and then this week find that I'm on the ballot and that I actually have to campaign! And give a speech! Only one minute, but a speech nevertheless. So I'll be spending the day split between working on my book and writing a speech and a little bio about me and why I want to be a delegate to make a flyer to hand out to people at the caucus to get them to vote for a nobody.

Bottom line: I'm running to be an Obama delegate and to have a true progessive voice and vote at the Democratic Convention. The more real committed progressives we get at every level - from bottom to top - in the Democratic Party, the better chance we stand of making a change. As you all know, I'm a big proponent of 'preaching to the choir', because I feel that it's more effective to try to motivate liberals on the sidelines than to try to convert conservatives. We have enough people who believe in progressive values; we're the majority, as a matter of fact. It's getting them involved and active that is our real challenge, but it's a challenge I see as more doable than changing the mind of a conservative. So I am trying to take my own advice and not just talk but do something, and this is a golden opportunity to do just that. This election could prove to be one of the most important Presidential elections ever - literally the difference between war and peace, between economic collapse and the hope of mitigating it; not to mention the judiciary where the remaining judges who are not radical right-wing are now in the most tenuous position imaginable and some will be replaced in the next four years. We cannot allow the judiciary to be hijacked for the next thirty years., which is what will happen if another Republican gets into office.

I have never asked anyone to vote for me before, so it feels really awkward - but if you are a registered Democrat in my congressional district (the 28th CD in California) or you know someone who is, I'd like to ask you to come out to the caucus tomorrow and vote for me. The caucus is being held here:

North Hollywood Recreation Center
11430 Chandler Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Here's how you get there.

Caucuses open at 2pm - you must be in line by 3pm in order to receive a ballot to vote. Caucuses are open to registered Democrats who live in that Congressional District.

And you can check out the California Democratic Party website for more information.

Thank you!

What Regular People Are Hearing

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

Yesterday, I went for my long-overdue hair appointment with the Prince of Peroxide, my friend Eddy James (who is a miracle-worker, I must say - he did not ask me for a plug but I'm giving it anyway!) He asked me how my book was coming and I told him it was in the process of being edited, and then he and I got talking about politics, as we usually do at that point. He's Canadian and his wife is American, but he's a pretty progressive guy for a 'normie' (i.e. someone who isn't up to his tits in the interwebs about politics.)

In public, I don't launch into my tirades unless someone asks me enough times that I can't help myself. We started by talking about the possible SAG/AFTRA strike, and the acrimony between the two unions - disheartening because I belong to both and they've been seeking rapproachment for a while, but it's falling apart at this time. The subject went to unions in general, then the economy. Next came the state of the media, and I started talking about news programming and the fact that since news is now expected to draw ratings like a sitcom or game show, we get more flash and spin and less substance, and how we're losing out as citizens because the people entrusted by the protection of the Constitution to keep us informed have abandoned their responsibility to the public interest. We pretty much concurred that you can't trust the media to tell us the truth.

When we got around to the primary races, the girl who was assisting Eddy, and who up to this point had not made a peep, piped up and said, "Well, Obama wants to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of public schools!"

My jaw dropped.

I had just finished talking about Bush's Rovian dirty campaigning tricks that had been used against both Ann Richards in the race for the Texas governorship and John McCain in 2000 - the 'push-polling' where operatives would call up people and ask them if they would vote for so-and-so if they knew that they had a gay agenda (Richards) or had an illegitimate black child (McCain).

I asked her where she had heard that. She said that someone forwarded her an e-mail.

After explaining where it had come from - that someone took a picture of Obama standing with other candidates without his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, which is not the Pledge of Allegiance ("I was taught by my grandfather that you put your hand over your heart during the pledge, but during the Star Spangled Banner, you sing!" Obama said) - I was struck by the fact that this is how the majority of people in the United States get their information about politics, and about politicians. Since I don't spend a lot of time talking to regular people about the things that I rant about as a blogger and writer, it was a bit of a shock to hear something that to me is a well-known fabrication unworthy of the least bit of consideration regarded as gospel truth by someone else. This girl who works in the salon looks like somewhat of an 'arty' type, as do many people in the hair business. She certainly did not come off as overly conservative. She didn't seem especially interested in politics at all.

But she 'knew' about Obama wanting to take the Pledge of Allegiance out of schools.

This is what we're up against, folks.

This is why I'm going to take opportunties as they come up - not to harangue or harass people with my political worldview, but to try and do my part to put correct information out there whenever I can. It's not the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives I'm trying to reach. Their minds are already made up, and a pesky and unwelcome fact is not going to intrude upon their worldview unless it already fits into their frame of reference. It's the people who have progressive values but not the information to back it up; people who don't understand that what they're hearing isn't necessarily always true, that I want to connect with. And I do believe that most Americans have progressive values. That's why I write this blog; that's why I wrote my book. If I can compete, even in my own limited way, with the misinformation - both deliberate and unintentional - I feel that I have a duty to do that.

When I talk to people like this young girl, what I tell them is check for yourself. Don't take my word for it any more than you would take the word of a forwarded e-mail. But I do tell them that it's important to understand that what you hear from the media and from 'other sources' may be inaccurate, incomplete, or just plain-out lies, and since the media no longer feel any obligation to the public interest, but only to the interests of their shareholders and advertisers, it is now necessary to check and double-check your sources. Otherwise you will be making decisions and casting your vote from an uninformed standpoint - and that has already proved to be deadly.

The idea that we can take everything we hear on faith has come and gone. We must be responsible for our own knowledge as information consumers. If this girl had taken even a minute to Google some different sources, she might not have taken that ridiculous and mendacious e-mail as the basis for her opinion of a candidate - an opinion that could very well influence her vote. And that's what the people who propagate these falsehoods are counting on.

I don't expect anyone to take what I have to say on faith. Please, look up anything you hear me say. And consider the source.

An informed society is a free society. An uninformed society?

Not so much.

Carnival of the Liberals #61 - Better Late Than Never!

My abject apologies go out to everyone who sent in an article, and especially to the esteemed proprietor, the Neural Gourmet, who I enjoyed meeting in DC last November with Americans United for Separation of Church and State (the long name with the short URL!). If it was not for my horrendous computer crash it would have been up yesterday.

So, I would like to belatedly offer up for your perusal and edification the cream of the liberal blogging crop for Carnival of the Liberals #61. I now have more new great blogs to add to the ol' BlogRoll.

Starting us off with a bang is Divided We Stand, with an ode to the departing doughball that is Denny Hastert, "Oh Denny Boy" (appeals to my Irish heart), and what it signifies for the implosion of the Republicans.

Tracee from BlogFabulous makes a point that ought to be front and center of any discussion of the abortion issue - Stop Abortion, Vote Healthcare!

The mighty T of The Republic of T tells it like it is about the 'Ownership Society', or, more correctly, the Society of the Owned, Pt. 1. This is a series, BTW, and one that you should read every installment of.

Are you as sick of the selfish smugness of Objectivists as I am? Matthew Wilder, the Wild Philosopher, undresses Ayn Rand with Philosophically Fucking Humanity.

Although I understand we don't cotton much to 'candidate chatter' around the Carnival, I think my reasonably conservative friend Jon Swift has a word or two worth noting about the way Dems (and many liberal bloggers) are attacking each other and doing Grampa McCain's dirty work for him in Hillary Clinton Supporters at Daily Kos Go On Strike! C'mon, you krazy kids, knock it off, why don'tcha?

Greta Christina, she of the eponymous Blog, is a blogger I didn't know before, but who I will be reading regularly now that I have discovered her. Her post On The Amazingness of Atheists...and Why It's Doomed is thought-provoking and smart.

MBB at Money Blue Book has an informative and pithily-titled post up about Making Fun Of Late Night Infomercials Using Hotties With Assets To Sell Get Rich Schemes. Another blog very much worth visiting, especially in this economic free-fall.

Another blogger that I was fortunate enough to meet in DC with Americans United was the formidable PZ Myers of Pharyngula, a free-thinking evolutionary biologist who is on the front lines of the battle between science and superstition. He was interviewed for the pro-'intelligent design' film Expelled!, featuring the always-scintillating Ben Stein. Since he was rather prominently featured in the movie, he and some family members planned on attending a screening at the local theater. I won't give away the details to those who don't know the story, but Greg Laden, a biological anthropologist and scienceblogger of...wait for it...Greg Laden's Blog, has all the details in PZ Myers Expelled, Gains Sainthood. You'll laugh, you'll cry...no, you'll just laugh. It's that rich.

Charles H. Green of Trust Matters brings us a word to the wise with Great Moments in Self-Regulation: Financial Planners and CFP Board. Any time you hear those magic words 'self-regualtion', hold on to your wallet and run the other way! The fleecing is about to commence.

Well, that's it for my first edition of Carnival of the Liberals. Many thanks to all the bloggers who sent posts. See you on the merry-go-round!

Back Up. Back Up. Back Up.

It has taken me an entire day of troubleshooting, and finally completely erasing the drive and reinstalling the OS and restoring in order to get my laptop (with my whole life on it) working again.

Can I tell you how glad I am that I had made a complete backup of my drive the day before?

I've always known that you're supposed to back up, but I'm ashamed to say that for years and years I always put it off till 'later'. I've been unbelievably fortunate in that I've never had the kind of crash where losing everything was an option. When I put Leopard on my laptop, it has a great little backup program called Time Machine and I actually only started using it a month ago.

I will continue to make regular backups from now on. Religiously.

Carnival of the Liberals

Will be up as soon as possible - I have had a massive crash after an update, so please bear with me.

I Got Mine - A Conservative Worldview

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

My kids are big fans of the 'Blue Collar Comedy Tour', and especially of Larry the Cable Guy, a comedian so conservative that he named his daughter Reagan (I kid you not.) They have Tivo'ed several of the shows and so I hear a lot of it from the living room. Most of the time I tune it out, but one bit of Larry the Cable Guy's caught my attention. He was extolling the virtues of Wal-Mart, and deriding liberals who don't like Wal-Mart because they pay their employees so little. His advice to those weenies who don't like how employees are treated at Wal-Mart is - "Don't work at Wal-Mart!"

Those four words (or five, depending on whether Wal-Mart is one word or two) sum up the basic precepts of conservative philosophy.

You'll hear conservatives say, "If you don't want to work at Wal-Mart, then get an education and work hard and you won't have to." Pull yourself up by your bootstraps; put your nose to the grindstone; have some self-discipline. The old 'personal responsibility' routine.

What that does not address is the question, "If I don't work there, then who else should be working there?"

In other words, a job that pays so little that a full-time worker is still below the poverty line and is eligible for welfare is fine and dandy - as long as it's not me working there?

That's the essence of the conservative worldview: as long as I've got mine, I don't care if you have yours. The idea of everyone pursuing his or her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, the self-interest of all will be maximized, or in the parlance of the Eighties, "Greed is good!" - is the one-size-fits-all answer to poverty, to injustice, to inequality. But what it boils down to in real life is "I've got mine." The idea that every person that works full-time is due enough compensation to support themselves, let alone a family, doesn't even enter into the calculation. It's okay for other people to be underpaid, overworked, taken advantage of. All that matters is - it's not me.

This is why conservatism just plain doesn't work - at least for the kind of society we say we want as Americans. There has to be some kind of consideration for more than just 'me and mine'. The place we're at right now - teetering on the brink of an economic collapse that could easily become a depression, embroiled in a grotesque, bloody occupation with no end in sight, pretending to be 'liberators' with no concern as to whether the country we're occupying wants us there or not, with a Vice-President who doesn't care how many Americans object to the war (apparently the two-thirds of Americans who say it's not worth fighting are merely exhibiting 'fluctuations in opinion', like toddlers who don't like apple juice today, but loved it yesterday), with the largest divide between rich and poor since the robber barons of the Gilded Age - is a place that conservatism, with its selfish, childish and short-sighted "I got mine" has brought us to.

And eventually, my conservative friends, even you may find yourself holding the short end of the stick. You may end up being the one treading water while someone else roars away to safety in the speedboat, oblivious to your cries for help. The policy of "I got mine" only leads to fewer and fewer people who have "got theirs" and more and more people who get next to nothing. Sooner or later, you'll be one of the latter. It's just a matter of time.

If you don't object to the mistreatment of your brother or sister, what will happen when it's your turn? Maybe you'll end up competing with Larry the Cable Guy for that swell greeter job at Wal-Mart.

How uniquely American.

From The Horse's Mouth: Read Adam Smith Online

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, from which the 'Invisible Hand' line comes, is online and you can read it for free here. It is also searchable.

Here is a site that has many Adam Smith quotes.

Enjoy.

Strangulation By The 'Invisible Hand'

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

Ain't nothin' like the 'free market', is there?

Yee haw.

For years now, we've heard conservatives go on and on and on ad nauseum about the miracle of the free market. Yes, that magical 'invisible hand' that leads to properity, prosperity and more prosperity! Why does it work? Uh, because it's supposed to, that's why! Of course it works! See how rich I am?

Call it 'faith-based economics'.

Conservatives are all about faith. The same people who pooh-pooh evolution as 'only a theory' and believe global warming is a hoax have an almost religious belief in laissez-faire capitalism. It is an article of faith with them that if the shackles of regulation and taxation were thrown off, a perfect economic miracle would occur. Everyone would be well-off – some more well-off than others, of course. The Market would ensure that competition was fair, and that therefore there would be no need of regulation! The Consumer would decide whether to buy a company’s products, and so the company would be forced to be ethical or else be punished by the Consumer. But the twin devils of Taxation and Regulation keep this miracle from happening.

This economic theory does not need any empirical evidence to be believed in fervently. The theory is more important than the results. If the results don't pan out, it only means that the theory has not been applied properly. More tax cuts! More deregulation!

You serfs who are losing your homes - it's all your own fault! If you can't afford the usurious interest rates, then you have no business buying houses. You mean you believed what your mortgage broker told you? Hey, not our fault. Caveat emptor, baby. Don't expect the government to come to your rescue, you freeloaders!

Yes indeed, it's all about taking risks - those CEOs deserve their zillion-dollar salaries because they take such big risks, and of course are completely reponsible for those risks. That is, unless they're not. Then it's Titty Time! Belly on up to the Big Government Boob! But only for the big guys. There's always a way to get someone else to pay for your mistakes when you're in the big leagues. The rest of us can go pound sand.

How come you don't hear anyone saying, "You shouldn't have taken on debt that you can't afford!" to Bear Stearns? These companies are, instead, fêted for their boldness and aggressiveness.

Here's what happened with the housing crisis.

How do you get Americans to spend money on consumer goods when their wages have stagnated? Business profits depend on consumer spending, but if consumers' wages have declined in real buying power while prices have gone up, how are businesses going to make profits after they've cut salaries as far as they can cut them?

Make up for the lack of wages by artificially inflating housing prices, then induce people to borrow against their equity. Did I say induce? How about force? Yes, force. When you suppress wages in order to fatten your bottom line while the cost of living continues to rise, then dangle out hope in the form of equity, and the only other alternative is bankruptcy (which, after the Bankruptcy Bill of 05, is even less available), then I would call that an 'offer you can't refuse' a la The Godfather.

But, consumers can be squeezed only so much, and eventually these vultures will pick every bit of flesh off of the bones of our carcasses. The 'invisible hand' has strangled the last breath out of us. The corporations have shifted all of the costs of their doing business onto us, and have kept the profits for themselves. And now that the top-heavy pyramid is about to crash, we're expected to pay for their sins even more by taking on the cost of their bailouts, and the CEOs who steered these companies into the iceberg float merrily away with their golden parachutes.

But those of us losing our homes, or in danger of losing our homes? That's a different story entirely. Bail us out? Oh, noes! Why, that would be enabling our irresponsibility! Moral hazard, don't you know! Hard-working, honest George Bush, who has been such a successful self-made businessman himself and has never needed a bailout or a handout, wouldn't consider it.

I understand the idea that to not bail out the big palookas would mean that the whole economy would come crashing down. So, if you're going to bail out these guys, why not bail out us as well? After all, we seem to be able to pony up three billion every week to keep on killing people. How about a few billion so regular Americans can stay out of the poorhouse? I sure could use a hand right about now.

That last one was a joke, I know. Who do I think I'm kidding?

But I sure wish I could get that 'Invisble Hand' from around my neck. It's hard to breathe.

And You Wonder Why Spitzer Got Popped? Read What He Wrote On Valentine's Day

I don't usually just paste entire articles verbatim, but I think this article that Spitzer wrote for the Washington Post speaks for itself:

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; Page A25


Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers.


Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis. This threat was so clear that as New York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states in attempting to fill the void left by the federal government. Individually, and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought litigation or entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged in predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans are now painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an obscure federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to ensure the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC examined the books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important but uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in its history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even slow, the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact, when my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in mortgage lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop the investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the banks and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would deny access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to protect. But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in no way jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately priced loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory lending practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers losing their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and recounts its devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still unfolding, but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice to the lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So willing, in fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an unprecedented assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general and anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer (is) was governor of New York.

Men Bite Dogs - Novakula, Ben Stein Say Something That Isn't Completely Asinine!

Whew! Give me a moment to catch my breath! It appears that Ben Stein, he of "Expelled" fame, who wants to use his formidable academic reputation to support faith-based science, and Bob 'No-Facts' Novak, have actually come out with pronouncements that do not appear to have been pulled directly out of their asses!

Raw Story reports, from an appearance on CBS' Sunday Morning:

Stein is troubled by what he calls the actions of a few "nosy civil servants" using evidence gained from wiretaps to unravel the career of the outgoing New York Governor, and undo a majority vote by the people of New York.

"Something sinister is happening," he says, "and it scares me."

"Men hire prostitutes by the thousands," Stein continues, "maybe tens of thousands, every day. They also bring women across state lines for sex every day.

"The punishment for the men who hire hookers is usually nil, or at most, a small fine, close to what you'd get for a traffic ticket."

Spitzer, on the other hand, was humiliated and run out of office as punishment, with Stein protesting a small number of federal officials having what he essentially calls veto power over the electoral process. Spitzer, he continues, has been stripped of his career for something picked up on a wiretap that was not a high crime like terrorism or treason.

"Having elected officials kicked out of office by appointed officials is a very dicey proposition," argues Stein.

He concludes: "Elections are a lot more important than call girls."

And from Novakula:

"Republican political operative Roger Stone, Eliot Spitzer's longtime antagonist, predicted his political demise more than three months in advance," Novak writes. "Spitzer's entrapment by federal authorities investigating a prostitution ring raised speculation that Stone, with a 40-year record as a political hit man, somehow was behind it."

"Eliot Spitzer will not serve out his term as governor of the state of New York,'' Stone said Dec. 6 on Michael Smerconish's radio talk show," Novak added. "He gave no details."

Novak's post was titled "GOP strategists at work."

In an interview last week, Stone cheered the governor's demise, and hinted further that he'd known about the governor's fall.

Also, Alan Dershowitz, writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, averred that the story of Spitzer's 'capture' doesn't entirely ring true to career prosecutors.

"There is no hard evidence that Eliot Spitzer was targeted for investigation, but the story of how he was caught does not ring entirely true to many experienced former prosecutors and current criminal lawyers," Dershowitz wrote. "The New York Times reported that the revelations began with a routine tax inquiry by revenue agents 'conducting a routine examination of suspicious financial transactions reported to them by banks.' This investigation allegedly found 'several unusual movements of cash involving the Governor of New York.' But the movement of the amounts of cash required to pay prostitutes, even high-priced prostitutes over a long period of time, does not commonly generate a full-scale investigation."

"We are talking about thousands, not millions, of dollars. We are also talking about a man who is a multimillionaire with numerous investments and purchases," he added. "The idea that federal investigators would focus on a few transactions to corporations -- that were not themselves under investigation -- raises as many questions as answers."

That last paragraph makes a lot of sense to me.

Yeah, yeah; I get the argument - "It's not the crime, it's the hypocrisy!" But the hypocrisy only matters if you are a Democrat. Republicans embrace the hypocrisy; they proudly own the hypocrisy.

Head spins.

When these guys are starting to make sense, you know that the Apocalypse is upon us.

For the Record...

I'm not going to be blathering on about the primary race. I know it's going to be sucking up bandwidth for the next couple of months, but since I will be voting for a Democrat no matter what, the particulars of the race are, for me, a distraction from what the Bush Administration is doing while the rest of the country is all het up about name-calling.

So if you want a respite from the primaries, come hang out with me!

Bush: "We'll Spy On You Whenever We Feel Like It - And You'd Better Be Grateful!"

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

Just when I think George W. Bush can't get any more insulting, condescending, arrogant, and despotic, I hear this, about telecom immunity:

"Now the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that may have helped save American lives be thanked for performing a patriotic service; should those who stepped forward to say we're going to help defend America have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the President say thank you for doing your patriotic duty? I believe we ought to say thank you."

"Thank You?!?"

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.

It's times like these that, I swear to God, I would vote for a stinking, sweaty, soiled jock strap if that jock strap were the alternative to Bush.

"Defend America?" We need to defend America from the likes of Bush and Co. We need to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which this administration has treated like Charmin.

What is it about the Bush family that insists upon gratitude from those it screws over? This is a consistent pattern with them. They seem to feel that not only are they entitled to destroy, steal from and trample on anyone they choose - but their victims must be grateful into the bargain!


From the invasion of Iraq (Bush: "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude"), to the imposition of his will upon poorer countries (Bush, during his visit to Latin America:“I don’t think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people’s lives”), to the suffering of those left homeless by Katrina (Barbara Bush:"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this is working very well for them."), the hallmark of the Bush family seems to be imperialism. This assumption of superiority is evidenced in every word that spews out of Dubya's pie-hole. His smug, smirking frat-boy bonhommie turns into annoyed petulance in a flash if he does not receive what he considers his 'due' from anyone he perceives to be below him, which pretty much amounts to anyone who isn't a Bush or a member of his 'base', the "haves and have-mores". To be fair, that was a joke told at a fund-raiser; Al Gore was also in attendance and poked fun at himself in a similar manner. Nevertheless, it's a joke with more that a grain of truth - more like a wheelbarrow-full. As the scion of four generations of wealthy international power-brokers and string-pullers, his sense of entitlement is simply gargantuan. He has always attempted to mask it with his faux-Texan bumptiousness, but his Eastern-elite prep-school peevishness surfaces every time he is crossed in any way.

Bush's attitude of "L'etat, c'est moi" is painfully obvious. When he says others should be grateful to America, what he really means is that they should be grateful to him. There is no distinction in his mind between America's interests and wants, and his own. His interests are America's, so by proxy, anyone who opposes his will opposes America. He truly carries the 'White Man's Burden'. Like imperialist Britain, he believes that those he tramples upon are his inferiors, who should be thankful for the opportunity to be of service to him.

He is also a bully, and those that have the temerity to oppose his will must be not only vanquished but humiliated in the process. It is not enough for him to get his way; like a dog, he lifts his leg on those that he triumphs over. Witness the craven and embarrassing John McCain 2000 embrace after Bush used the lowest, most loathsome dirty tricks to smear him in South Carolina. With Bush, it's all about dominance and submission. It is not enough to obey Big Brother; you have to love Big Brother.

In the words of the ultimate frat-boy (sorry, Chris!): "Thank you, sir - may I have another?"

And here we are, on the brink of giving Bush a 'get out of jail free' card. Four simple words: Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.

He knows it; we know it; everyone knows it. This business about "punishing the telecoms for keeping Americans safe" is a gigantic, stinking sack of horseshit. Don't tell me that these obscenely wealthy corporations don't have the best lawyers that money can buy - no doubt better than the lackeys in the government - and somehow didn't know they were being asked to do something illegal - even before 9/11! And they "won't be so cooperative if they're going to be sued"? More shit. If they had a warrant, they wouldn't have a choice - and would be immune to prosecution!

The most secretive, unaccountable President in American history - the man who told reporters in the haughtiest manner imaginable that

"I don't email, however. And there's a reason. I don't want you reading my personal stuff. There has got to be a certain sense of privacy. You know, you're entitled to how I make decisions. And you're entitled to ask questions, which I answer. I don't think you're entitled to be able to read my mail between my daughters and me."

feels perfectly entitled to deep-six the most basic privacy that ordinary Americans are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Guess what, asshole? I don't want you reading my personal stuff, either. But I'm just a citizen, a lowly peon, not the Divinely-Ordained King of America™.

My 'personal stuff' is fair game, to be stolen and sold without my knowledge or consent.

This 'personal stuff'? It's called data. As in data-mining. Information about me has a monetary value as well as a personal value. Big businesses pay huge sums to buy lists that have every transaction I make, every person I call or e-mail, every place I travel to, my school records, my medical history, my financial and credit history, my political preferences and every single detail about my life, in a nice, organized, cross-referenced file. This file can be used by companies to increase their business, target their advertising, fine-tune their audience and in a host of ways, add to their bottom line. It can also be used to deny me medical coverage, jobs and a home, throw me in jail, and it can be sold to other 'interested parties' for still more profit.

And this treasure-trove, that makes others wealthy - where did they get this from? Did they purchase it from me? Do I receive even a penny of the money that my 'personal stuff' is generating?

Hell to the no.

In fact, not only is it taken from me without my knowledge and without compensation, to be used against me, but here's the kicker:

I am paying them!

Yes, friends, you heard me right.

You and I pay these companies to steal information which brings them even more profit, and can be detrimental to our own interests. Do these companies share any of their ill-gotten wealth with the parties they took it from?

Hell to the no.

They use that information to their benefit and my detriment. And when they sell, not give (remember, the oh-so-imperative and life-saving wiretapping was cut off at one point for non-payment! And Al-Qaeda didn't manage to swoop in and take over America during that time?), that information to the government, again without our knowledge, permission or compensation, what does the government buy that information with?

Tax dollars. Our tax dollars.

I know I harp on this a lot, but I think it bears repeating: we are paying - on both ends - to be stolen from and spied upon! And on top of that, we're supposed to be grateful for it!

But even that, as grotesque as it is, is only a smokescreen. FBI director Robert Mueller inadvertently tips the White House's hand when he opines that telecoms should be granted immunity even if they acted in bad faith! The real issue is that Bush is immunizing himself and his thugs from culpability for crimes they have knowingly committed. They began immediately upon seizing office, when Dick Cheney convened his energy cronies to decide how to divvy up the future spoils, and told the American people, "Go fuck yourself. It's none of your goddamned business." They sealed Presidential records, lied us into an illegal, but hugely profitable (for them - it has been devastating to the rest of America, and the world) occupation of a sovereign nation, and generally told America to STFU and do as we're told.

Right now I couldn't care less about the goddamn primaries, or who said what about who. I don't care about delegates, or super-delegates, or super-duper-delegates. Not when the Kommander-in-Thief, the Kowboy Koward of Krawford, is about to neatly let himself off the hook, aided and abetted by this shameful excuse for a Democratic Congress.

Telecom immunity=Bush immunity.

"I believe we ought to say thank you"?

I believe we ought to say, "Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect 2 trillion dollars."

But I'm not holding my breath.

Say It Loud - I'm Liberal and I'm Proud!

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

In Austin last week, Barack Obama spoke these words to his supporters:

"Oh, he's liberal,” he said. “He's liberal. Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. We got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should do something smarter with our health care system. Don't let them run that okie doke on you!"

Begging your pardon, Barack, but there is something liberal about all of these things.


These are liberal policies, liberal goals.

It's a crying shame that one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination (and, at this point at least, the likely nominee) feels as if he must deny the word liberal - even as he advances liberal policies!

As Obama goes on with his 'nothing liberal' rant - "Who, me? Liberal? No way! Uh-uh - not me!", the Republicans are falling all over themselves trying to 'out-conservative' each other. To them, 'conservative' is a badge of honor; in fact, if you don't embrace conservatism, you're not even worthy of consideration. As I've said before, the worst epithet one Republican can hurl at another is 'liberal'. Crazy-ass John McCain has been called that by his detractors.

He should be so fortunate.

What has this wonderful conservatism brought us over the last forty years? A black hole of war and war profiteering that is sucking our nation dry as it kills millions? An economy that has taken money from the poorest to give to the richest and decimated a once-thriving middle class? A social climate of bigotry and division, where discrimination is not just morally acceptable, but divinely ordained? A place where the 'Golden Rule' is "He who has the gold makes the rules"? Where we kill others to force 'freedoms' upon them while eviscerating our own freedoms at home? It has turned a once-respected country into the most feared and reviled country in the world, run by lawless thugs who have no aspirations beyond their own enrichment and power.

Some legacy. How proud they must be.

The Sixties brought the Republican party to a place of crisis. The defeat of Goldwater, the civil rights movement, the explosion of social and cultural upheaval – riots, assassinations, hippies, feminists - all these left conservatives floundering like a fish out of water. Scornfully branded ‘the Establishment’, their traditional way of life had gotten away from them, and they were determined to get it back. Capitalism itself was under attack. Everything that was wrong with the world, it seemed, could be directly attributed to liberalism. It was time for serious measures.

In 1968, a group of conservative millionaires and corporate heavyweights convened to discuss this alarming state of affairs. There had been a seismic cultural shift, and conservatives were on the wrong side of it. Lewis H. Lapham, editor emeritus of Harper's Magazine, tells the story:

The hope of their salvation found its voice in a 5,000-word manifesto written by Lewis Powell, a Richmond corporation lawyer, and circulated in August 1971 by the United States Chamber of Commerce under the heading Confidential Memorandum; Attack on the American Free Enterprise System. Soon to be appointed to the Supreme Court, lawyer Powell was a man well-known and much respected by the country's business community; within the legal profession he was regarded as a prophet. His heavy word of warning fell upon the legions of reaction with the force of Holy Scripture: "Survival of what we call the free enterprise system," he said, "lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations."

The venture capital for the task at hand was provided by a small sewing circle of rich philanthropists—Richard Mellon Scaife in Pittsburgh, Lynde and Harry Bradley in Milwaukee, John Olin in New York City, the Smith Richardson family in North Carolina, Joseph Coors in Denver, David and Charles Koch in Wichita—who entertained visions of an America restored to the safety of its mythological past—small towns like those seen in prints by Currier and Ives, cheerful factory workers whistling while they worked, politicians as wise as Abraham Lincoln and as brave as Teddy Roosevelt, benevolent millionaires presenting Christmas turkeys to deserving elevator operators, the sins of the flesh deported to Mexico or France. Suspicious of any fact that they hadn't known before the age of six, the wealthy saviors of the Republic also possessed large reserves of paranoia, and if the world was going rapidly to rot (as any fool could plainly see) the fault was to be found in everything and anything tainted with a stamp of liberal origin—the news media and the universities, income taxes, Warren Beatty, transfer payments to the undeserving poor, restraints of trade, Jane Fonda, low interest rates, civil liberties for unappreciative minorities, movies made in Poland, public schools.*

*The various philanthropic foundations under the control of the six families possess assets estimated in 2001 at $1.7 billion. Harry Bradley was an early and enthusiastic member of the John Birch Society; Koch Industries in the winter of 2000 agreed to pay $30 million (the largest civil fine ever imposed on a private American company under any federal environmental law) to settle claims related to 300 oil spills from its pipelines in six states.

Although small in comparison with the sums distributed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations, the money was ideologically sound, and it was put to work leveraging additional contributions (from corporations as well as from other like-minded foundations), acquiring radio stations, newspapers, and journals of opinion, bankrolling intellectual sweatshops for the making of political and socioeconomic theory. Joseph Coors established The Heritage Foundation with an initial gift of $250,000 in 1973, the sum augmented over the next few years with $900,000 from Richard Scaife; the American Enterprise Institute was revived and fortified in the late seventies with $6 million from the Howard Pew Freedom Trust; the Cato Institute was set up by the Koch family in 1977 with a gift of $500,000. If in 1971 the friends of American free enterprise could turn for comfort to no more than seven not very competent sources of inspiration, by the end of the decade they could look to eight additional installations committed to "joint effort" and "united action." The senior officers of the Fortune 500 companies meanwhile organized the Business Roundtable, providing it by 1979 with a rich endowment for the hiring of resident scholars loyal in their opposition to the tax and antitrust laws.

And so the conservative movement began its climb up from the abyss. They knew that it would take many years and billions of dollars to build their machine. They put into place an interlocking series of organizations designed to produce a new generation of scholars, pundits, and intellectual leaders, supported by think tanks, scholarships, internships, and media outlets. Promising young college Republicans were nurtured and cultivated, and the path to prominence made smooth as they were escorted to high-profile jobs to establish them as leading lights and deep thinkers. The overriding idea was to denigrate liberalism in every way possible – the ‘liberal media’, liberal education, liberal values. This was not a natural ‘swing of the pendulum’ – it was bought and paid for. It was slow-growing, but inexorable, and soon the term ‘liberal’, which only a few years before was how most people described themselves; which stood for society’s values – a safety net for the poorest, tolerance, intelligence, inquiry, progress – became an epithet. Liberals were irresponsible, unrealistic, immature, decadent, and wasteful of other people’s money. They were immoral, licentious, hedonistic, irrational and self-indulgent. With the concerted efforts of the new think tanks, newspaper and magazine articles, and pundits-for-hire, these ideas seeped into the national consciousness.

Forty years later, it is time to understand that the assault against liberalism did not just happen. It was planned, financed, and implemented, and we are living with the results today. This is what happens when unregulated capitalism is allowed to rampage without the checks and balances that liberal policies foster.

Conservatives have spent billions and billions of dollars to make 'liberal' into a dirty word, and they have succeeded when people who should be calling themselves liberal emphatically deny the word in the same breath as they espouse liberal policies and values. Even the word 'progressive', which is nothing to be ashamed of, and represents the idea that society should be improved upon through action, is used by liberals who want to express their values without using the 'L' word.

I think this has to stop.

I've done it myself - I have called myself both liberal and progressive interchangeably, and I feel that both terms express my value system. However, when I choose not to use the word 'liberal', I am making sure that the conservative movement's money has been well-spent. If I back off of the word 'liberal', they win!

I don't know about you, but I am ready to take back that word. Wouldn't it be great if all that conservative smear money was wasted? We need to get back to what liberalism really means.Yes, we made mistakes as liberals (notice I'm not saying 'mistakes were made'?) but instead of scrapping the policies that brought us back from the Depression and gave us a middle class, we should learn from our mistakes and work towards making our great country the best it can be. We can't let fear of being called 'liberal' stop us from claiming our great legacy. Conservatives will revile us no matter what we do, and abandoning our values and moving towards theirs is not the correct response. It only makes them more arrogant, and we validate their position if we pander to them in the name of bipartisanship and compromise. You sure won't see them reaching across the aisle in the spirit of moving forward. As we saw just last week over the FISA issue, if they don't get their way, they simply walk out.

Senator Obama, there is something liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics that is common sense. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure our soldiers are treated properly when they come home. There is something liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare, but we are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country. And the sooner that some candidate has the sack to stand up and say that proudly, the sooner we'll start down the path of getting our country back.

Being called a liberal is 'okie-doke' with me, Senator.

Say it loud: I'm liberal and I'm proud!

Thanks for the E-ward, Suzanne!

Suzanne from TwoTonGreenBlog (who also hosts and/or moderates Late Night at Firedoglake) has been kind enough to tag me with an Excellence in Blogging award, which I will be happy to pass along. Suzanne has a great heart, a feisty spirit, fabulously eclectic taste in music and a 'take no prisoners' point of view (which no doubt comes in handy as a mod!) She has become a friend who helped me get through losing one of my beloved cats with a sympathetic shoulder and a listening ear.

I will be passing this on to:

Rainbow Demon from Coffee House Studio - a wild ride you'll never forget
Texas Betsy from Head-On Radio Network - an inexhaustible fount of up-to-the-minute info
Mutant Poodle at Mutant Poodle - one of my homies, smart and informed
Phoenix Woman at Mercury Rising - writes at Firedoglake; this is her own blog
Quaker Dave at Quaker Agitator - a unique perspective
The folks at Les Enragés - great group blog
Distributorcap at distributorcap NY - a man brave enough to watch Dubya on TV (more than I can do!)
Station Agent at Ice Station Tango - because Canada is not far enough
Comments from Left Field - where my blogfather lives
Catherine from PovertyBarn - commentary from a SF perspective (take that, BillO!)

You all rock.

On This Day - Goodbye to...

Buddy Miles.

William F. Buckley.

I'm gonna miss Buddy.

Monday's "Hooterville Hall O' Fame"

Mixing it up with old friends and new:

Karlo at Swerve Left
Mock, Paper, Scissors
ddjango at P!
Preemptive Karma
Cap'n Dyke, Lesbian Pirate Queen and Rogue Blogger
Lydia Cornell

and a hearty Hooterville 'hi' to TomCat from Politics Plus!

'Inspiration', 'Cult of Personality' A Crock? Tell It To St. Ronnie!

(cross-posted at the Smirking Chimp)

It seems that Barack Obama is drawing heat from the right and the left because he's 'inspirational'. John McCain says about Obama's message, "It's no more than an eloquent, but empty call for change." Hillary Clinton touts her own experience and toughness as superior to Barack Obama's call for unity and optimism.

The point seems to be that Obama's message of hope and inspiration that has galvanized so many Americans (even a few Republicans, or 'Obamicans' as they're now known) is a bunch of hogwash, and that Obama's appeal is superficial and insubstantive. 'Hope'? That's nothing to base a presidential campaign on!

While the Republicans are busy vilifying Obama for his inspirational speeches and call him an 'empty suit' and a perpetrator of the 'Cult of Personality', they seem to have forgotten about the Ultimate Republican Hero, whom the Repub candidates have practically come to blows over as they each claim to be the 'absolutely most Reagan-y'. John McCain called himself a 'Foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution'. The basis of Ronald Reagan's appeal (to both Republicans and the 'Reagan Democrats') was that, instead of endlessly droning on about the problems we faced as a nation and the unpleasant medicine we'd have to swallow if we wanted things to get better like that grumpy old Jimmy Carter did (gosh, who wants to vote for someone who tells you things you don't want to hear? Conserving energy? Turning down our thermostats? Yuck!), Reagan burst forth like sunshine from behind a cloud and pooh-poohed away all those worries with a dismissive wave of his hand as he told Americans not to believe their lying eyes or their dwindling bankbooks, but to cheer up; because we were the Best Nation Ever™, and to say otherwise was tantamount to treason.

And who didn't want to believe him? Americans were tired of sacrifice and penny-pinching, inflation and gas lines, hostages and humiliation. So when Reagan promised that he was going to wipe the slate clean and make Americans proud once more, he held out something that could not be quantified or qualified - he held out hope. He told Americans what they wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear, and his 'feel-good' rhetoric catapulted him into the White House. His emphasis on supply-side economics (or 'voodoo economics' as his future VP Bush Senior called it during the race for the nomination), the idea that 'deficits don't matter' and complete rollback of the New Deal went unchallenged in the desire to put the 'bad stuff' behind us.

Reagan, however, really was a 'tabula rasa' - an actor who could be counted on to do his corporate masters' bidding with zeal and true belief, which was how he got Americans to trust him. The public can sniff out inauthenticity, and, as an actor, he immersed himself in the biggest role of his career until he really did believe. A former Democrat, former New Deal supporter, former labor union president (Screen Actors Guild), Reagan’s years with GE as not only a television host but a traveling ‘good-will ambassador’ for GE, changed his viewpoint as he spent the bulk of his time with corporate and defense contractor honchos and became convinced that government regulation was interfering with the free market. He was passionate, as are most born-agains, and the sincerity of his convictions resonated with the electorate, winning him a whole new constituency of ‘Reagan Democrats’. Believing as he did that government was the problem, not the solution, he cut off funding for arts and education, busted unions (beginning with the air traffic controllers strike, which caused a sharp upturn in airplane accidents), and slashed programs to assist mothers, children, and minorities, while pouring money into defense and running up huge deficits.

Yes, old Saint Ronnie was quite the salesman, and his customers just couldn't get enough of the snake-oil. Reagan was groomed and prepped by the political star-makers of the right to be the popular face of their movement, and in that sense he was a brilliant success. He got a laugh when he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'” Actually, to me the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “An actor with Alzheimer’s was once our Nation’s President”. But I digress. His witty little quips and avuncular folksiness obscured the fact that he was launching a war against the middle class and the poor, and putting forth the incredible idea that 'Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend."

Reagan was, indeed, the triumph of 'style over substance', and it was the force of his personality that earned him the label "The Great Communicator". But he has been ensconced in conseravtive minds as the greatest president ever, while ostensibly 'running the country' in the throes of Alzheimer's.

Barack Obama is far more qualified to be President than Reagan ever was. Like Schwarzenegger after him, Reagan was an actor who had been recruited by big money interests to lend their on-screen persona to the agenda of the big businesses who, for obvious reasons, could not be elected on their own recognizance. Obama has the drive and the charisma, but he also has the goods. He's his own man, for whatever that's worth.

This may be what drives the Repubs crazy. The purpose of an empty suit is for it to be worn by someone else. They have deified Reagan for the same thing that they are crucifying Obama for - for inspiring, uplifting, instilling hope in the hopeless. But when you compare the two, there's a difference. Reagan's feel-good, yay-America, look-at-the-pretty-birdie-over-there rhetorical sleight-of-hand was meant to distract Americans from reality while the real operatives did their work behind the scenes. Obama is a gifted, passionate and persuasive speaker who has touched a nerve in America. But he has also spent his lifetime involved in public service. He is highly educated and skilled. Whatever else he may be, he is not a mouthpiece for those who would rather stay in the shadows and pull strings from behind the curtains.

I am not saying this, by the way, as someone who is particularly under the sway of Obama's charisma. He was not my first choice Democrat, or my second. I think he is a good, qualified candidate whom I will support if he becomes the Democratic nominee. But I do not discount the power of the Obama phenomenon, and anything that motivates young people to get excited about a candidate and get involved in the electoral process is something worth paying attention to. The biggest problem I think we face as progressives is apathy, and Obama is shaking people up in a way that hasn't been seen in a generation. Hopelessness breeds apathy and disengagement, and to inspire hope and energy and involvement in people who have been on the sidelines politically is a gift, not just to Obama's campaign, but to the whole (small 'd') democratic process. We all owe Obama a 'thank you' for that.

Republicans like McCain who worship Reagan for his 'hopeful, uplifting' optimism are the same ones who sneer at Obama's message. The self-described 'foot-soldier of the Reagan Revolution' now says, “to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.”

Yeah - a platitude like "Morning in America".

I guess that 'inspiration' is only useful to Republicans when it is a smokescreen instead of a searchlight.

Belated Wednesday Weekly World News - Atlantis Found!

(I normally post this on Wednesday, but my little daughter got a last-minute slot for the eye surgery she's been waiting for when there was a cancellation, so everything's been on hold for yesterday and today. It was successful and she's resting at home and being spoiled by one and all!)

(Read over at Eli's Multi-Medium...)

The Lost Continent of Atlantis Has Been Found - and it's the Answer to the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!

DUBUQUE, Iowa -- In an astounding discovery, a scientist has announced the most amazing archaeological find of the twenty-first century - the Lost Continent of Atlantis!

Dr. Oliver Icklemyer, an archaeologist at the University of Phoenix, unveiled his astonishing news at a recent press conference in Dubuque, Iowa. First mentioned by Plato in Timaeus around 360 B.C., Atlantis was a magnificent continent-sized island empire which was destroyed in 9000 B.C. in the span of 24 hours by earthquakes and floods, and was subsequently lost in the bottom of the ocean, its advanced civilization lost forever - or so it has been believed. For centuries the location of the fabled Atlantis has been hotly debated, but Dr. Icklemyer has stunned experts by claiming that Atlantis is actually about half a mile out from the Jersey Shore.

"It stands to reason," the professor modestly explained. "When I connected the dots - 'Atlantic Ocean', 'Atlantic City', 'Atlantis' - it all fell into place."

And now, the Lost Continent of Atlantis has not only been discovered, but will soon be inhabited once again for the first time in eleven thousand years - by the victims of the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis!

The White House is hailing this as a 'win-win'. A spokesman for the Administration is quoted as saying, "This is a red-letter day for the Americans who have lost their homes due to fraudulent and deceptive marketing practices by banks and mortgage brokers. Each and every family that has been bilked out of their house will receive, practically free of charge, a beautiful 1/16-acre plot in the exclusive Atlantis: Phase II 'lifestyle community' subdivision - and an air tank for each member of the family! Every home is equipped with running water. There are recreational activities galore, including fishing and swimming."

Already real-estate developers are scrambling to get first dibs on this remarkable bonanza of untapped investment potential. An unnamed real-estate mogul calls it the real 'final frontier', saying, "Space, shmace! That's so last century! You wanna talk about your 'Manifest Destiny' - this is it, baby!" He plans on changing the name to 'Trump-lantis'.

In a statement to the Weekly World News, the President's mother Barbara Bush notes,"And so many of the people in Atlantis here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Monday's "Hooterville Hall O' Fame"

This week's inductees in the Hooterville Hall O' Fame are:

Kelso's Nuts
Much That Is Hidden
When Will I Use This?
The Democratic Daily
TPC-CultureVultures

A warm welcome to all of you!

Thoughts on Blog Amnesty and the Mainstream Media

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

I enjoyed last week's Blog Amnesty. I don't get to spend a lot of time reading and commenting on other people's blogs, certainly not as much as I'd like, so it was a great opportunity for me to expand my blog horizons. Like many people, my life is filled up with family, work, friends and obligations, and I always feel 'behind the eight-ball' in regards to keeping up with my favorite bloggers, and discovering new blogs. Having a designated 'Blog Amnesty Day' made it easier to do that.

It also got me thinking about the phenomenon of blogging, and how it differs from the mainstream media. In the wake of the consolidation of media that has been going on for the last 20 years, blogging has stepped up as the 'adversarial' press envisioned by our founders in the First Amendment. The fact that bloggers are mostly unpaid and uncontrolled has freed them to a large extent from incestuous relationships with those they are supposed to be covering for the people. As the lines between 'journalism' and infotainment have blurred, it has become more difficult to separate truth from opinion on television, which is still where the majority of Americans get their news.

For many years, news was not obligated to support itself financially. A company fortunate enough to get a license to use a portion of the broadcast spectrum had practically a license to print money. As the spectrum is limited, only a lucky few were able to obtain these licenses. The broadcast spectrum, however, is a part of the 'commons' - common resources belonging to the people of the United States. No corporation is allowed to own the airwaves; they may only rent space on the spectrum. In return for the great privilege of being allowed to rent this access to the people of the United States for a trifling sum, the broadcast companies were expected to 'donate' news coverage as a public service. This news coverage was expected to adhere to strict journalistic standards, and was not to be responsible for 'paying its own way' through ratings and advertising, unlike other television and radio shows. However, in the last few years this has been dropped - but no one saw fit to inform Americans of this.

'News' is now expected to hold its own, financially and ratings-wise against entertainment - sitcoms, gossip shows, game shows, reality programming, night-time dramas, etc. - although its purpose is not entertainment. What has been true for other entertainment programs (that they are chosen by the networks to maximize ad revenue and target the advertisers' preferred demographic - young white males) has now been required of news, resulting in info-tainment rather than the obligation to inform the public. This means (and has meant for a while now) that the media and the press, specifically protected by the First Amendment for the purpose of advocating for the people rather than the establishment, are now beholden and obligated to the very institutions they have been entrusted with criticizing. But, somehow, no one got around to telling us that. Many people are still under the misapprehension that what we see on television news is unbiased, and must be by law. "They're not allowed to lie on TV!"

The reason that the press is singled out in the First Amendment is that they were expected to be advocating for the people who do not have access to the information that has an impact upon their lives. Can I be in Washington in the halls of Congress every day? Can you? I can't be where the decisions are being made. That's what the press is supposed to do for me. But when it's more important to sell products than give me unbiased information, my rights as a citizen are being infringed upon. The press is protected only upon the assumption that it is advocating for me; doing what I cannot do. The press is supposed to be adversarial, not complicit with power. But that is not the case any more.

One more time: the press is supposed to be adversarial to the powers-that-be.

That concept has been stood upon its head, and never more egregiously than during the Bush Administration. As media become more consolidated and power over it concentrated in a mere five corporations, the idea of media independence is a thing of the past. Opinions are being disseminated by only a handful of people, all in the same club.

Blogging has become a powerful antidote to the consolidation of media. While it is not always appropriate to call it 'journalism', it has become a voice for the voiceless. It is able to take an adversarial position precisely because it is mostly unpaid and therefore uncontrollable, and with the wide variety of opinion available, it's possible to compare different points of view and come to your own conclusion. If you read something that sounds like BS to you, you can search for other articles on that topic and see what the other arguments for and against it are. No one is prevented from saying anything they want, no matter how false or misleading or vile, but it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the blogosphere and will stand or fall upon its merits.

And, unlike traditional media, the aim of blogging is not to contract, but to expand. Blogroll Amnesty is a great example of this principle, and as some of the so-called 'A-list' blogs become more and more exclusive, and closer to the issues and people they cover, the rest of the blog community seeks to become more inclusive. Instead of jockeying for dominance and pushing little blogs aside, the spirit of the blog community attempts to broaden the range of voices. And a blog is judged on its own quality, rather than how much money has been put into it. If you have something to say that resonates with other people, you will find an audience.

To me, this is the democratic way, and closer to the meaning of what the First Amendment was written for. No, most of us aren't 'journalists'. But everything we say is subject to public scrutiny and debate, and if a post is flawed, you can be sure that someone will point it out. The beauty of blogging is that nothing is just accepted as gospel. If you want to make an assertion, it will not be uncritically swallowed. And any commenter worth paying attention to will have to demonstrate his or her competence in order to be taken seriously. It's a self-correcting system - a true 'meritocracy' of ideas.

It's also a community of people, personalities and relationships. We are often partisan and biased, but as humans the partisanship and bias are on the table, not hidden under a mask of false 'impartiality'. Then you can consider the source in making your decision as to whether you accept or reject that person's argument.

I treasure the friends I've met through blogging - people whose paths I would never have crossed in my daily life. I'm proud to be a citizen of Blogtopia, and I love the fact that it's our ideas and writing that give me and my cohorts a seat at the table, not money or influence. The very fact that I have gotten a book publishing contract from someone hearing something I wrote and e-mailing me out of the blue, and not because I 'knew somebody', had the 'right contacts' or was high-profile in any way, is a testament to the collective power of blogging. It wasn't the number of 'hits' on my site (which aren't huge), or advertising, or anything else but doing the work. 'Wingnut welfare' notwithstanding, so many of us are getting our voices heard based on our hard work and commitment to speaking out, instead of novelty, nepotism, notoriety or the lowest common denominator.

Your voices count. And we are changing things - not overnight, but we are changing things; you can be assured of that.

So, write on, my brothers and sisters! Enquiring Minds want to know!