Rest In Peace, Chief Maloney

It isn't just black teenagers in hoodies who get shot when everyone and his uncle has a gun (or a personal armory.)  I'm so f'ing spitting mad right now on this subject that I'm just going to post the link to this story about the murder of a small town New Hampshire Police Chief and the wounds to four other officers in the line of duty.
I also, of course, want to "send" condolences to Chief Maloney's family and the families of the other officers who were shot in this incident.
UPDATE:
A suspect in Cicopee, MA was found dead of a gunshot wound after he had sprayed automatic weapon fire at a State Trooper, who was shot in the leg.  You can read that developing story here at New England Cable News and I want to say get well soon and thank you for your service, Trooper Vasquez. 
Below is an excellent clip from NECN regarding the incident that left Chief Maloney dead.

Best Bleeping Screed Ever

Thanks to my friend, LadyA, who shared this screed by MinistryOfTruth on the Daily Kos.  You'll have to read it for yourself but I think you'll agree it is the best screed regarding what it is about the ever-moving-further-to-the-right Republican Party that worries and angers us in the middle and on the left so much.  The name of the article says quite a bit, "An Open Letter by the People Who Hate Obama More Than They Love America."  And here's a little taste:

You like war. You like torture. You like Jesus. I don't know how in the hell any of that is compatible, but no one ever accused you haters of being over-committed to ideological consistency. You like people who look like you or at least hate most of the things that you hate. You hate everything else.

Sliding Scale

There's a reason why the the political and media right attack Rachel Maddow more than any of the other political show hosts on MSNBC.  Yes, she's the most liberal -- with the possible exception of Dylan Ratigan, they're all liberal obviously -- but the reason why they choose her as the poster child of the liberal media is because she's the one who most has her facts and her act together.  The right has always been very successful at holding someone up and demonizing them, labeling them as something to fear in a successful effort to keep their readers, listeners and partisans from even finding out for themselves what someone stands for.
Many times I've watched her show and felt, like I have with the others, that she's dead right but the difference with her is that she takes you to school and backs it up with lots of facts, evidence and proof.  Watching her first segment two nights ago was a textbook example of this, even more so than usual; but the reason I'm sharing this is because it's a wakeup call.  More often than not her topics of illustration bring to light something even the most informed hadn't thought of or noticed.  Also, there's an excellent interview at the end of the following clip with Maine's Democratic Representative Chellie Pingree regarding this issue and whether she's likely to run for Senator Olympia Snowe's seat.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Many of us moderate liberals have felt this going on for some time now.  Now is the time to put a stop to this and, if any, start dragging the center back to the left.
Cross-posted on For Consideration

From the woods to Orwell and Dickens

Call this a musing or a ramble, whatever.  I went for a long walk in the woods with my dog, Todd, which ought to mean, since it was in the woods in Maine, that I then read Thoreau; but after our walk I was initially interrupted by a partial journey through Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" (with an interlude to eat my very first cara cara orange, which I highly recommend) and a full viewing of "Interstellar Overdrive."  


Then on to read Christopher Hitchens' last essay, which was on G.K. Chesterton, which I confess to not really understand since I'm not very aware of Chesterton and only marginally more so of T.S. Eliot, who is also quoted often in that piece.  But then on to an article in The Atlantic regarding the writing of Hitch's final essay, which then lead me on to something that would not be surprising if you knew Hitch and again not surprising if you know me.  What is it?  Orwell's essay on Dickens, of course.  But before you read the link to the essay, I want to share this gem of a quote from Orwell:

“One is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals.”

 Since Hitchens is what truly sparked me to write this personal piece, I will likely end my day with a little of Mr. Walker's amber restorative.

Now back to the Orwell essay to put in a teaser quote:

In OLIVER TWIST, HARD TIMES, BLEAK HOUSE, LITTLE DORRIT, Dickens
attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been
approached. Yet he managed to do it without making himself hated, and,
more than this, the very people he attacked have swallowed him so
completely that he has become a national institution himself. In its
attitude towards Dickens the English public has always been a little like
the elephant which feels a blow with a walking-stick as a delightful tickling.

And then one more, which I hope will help to tie some of these themes together, at least what it was about Orwell that Hitchens admired.  In this quote you see Orwell's pragmatic outlook on society as he explains Dickens' similar view:

Whatever else Dickens may have been, he was not a hole-and-corner
soul-saver, the kind of well-meaning idiot who thinks that the world will
be perfect if you amend a few bylaws and abolish a few anomalies. It is
worth comparing him with Charles Reade, for instance. Reade was a much
better-informed man than Dickens, and in some ways more public-spirited.
He really hated the abuses he could understand, he showed them up in a
series of novels which for all their absurdity are extremely readable,
and he probably helped to alter public opinion on a few minor but
important points. But it was quite beyond him to grasp that, given the
existing form of society, certain evils CANNOT be remedied. Fasten upon
this or that minor abuse, expose it, drag it into the open, bring it
before a British jury, and all will be well that is how he sees it.
Dickens at any rate never imagined that you can cure pimples by cutting
them off. In every page of his work one can see a consciousness that
society is wrong somewhere at the root. It is when one asks 'Which root?'
that one begins to grasp his position.

Are you lost yet?

Anti-American

Carl Rove is offended -- not upset, offended -- by the Chrysler Corporation ad with Clint Eastwood that aired during the Super Bowl.  First, let me step back.  Hey Carl, who the fuck are you anyway?  On what basis do you have a right to be offended by anything anyone does, unless it was directed at you?  Get your fat, egotistical head out of your selfish ass.
The other point I'd like to make loud and clear is this:  Ask yourself what response the Carl Roves of the world would have if someone of liberal leanings were to ever be so bold as to disagree, say nothing about being offended by, with anything Clint Eastwood said or did?  That's right, they would've called you a pinko, commie, liberal, unAmerican so-and-so, and ask that you leave their country at once.  (The same crowd, by the way, that places bumper stickers on their trucks saying "If you don't love America, leave it" right next to their rebel flag bumper sticker)
So I have to say, not for the first time either, that Carl Rove is unAmerican and his umbrage is anti-American.  What other response is there to someone who takes offense at something done by arguably the most iconic of American symbols?
Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it.  Tell me what could possibly be offensive about asking us all to unite and knock off the partisan horseshit?



And for the sake of full disclosure: I am a liberal, a proud American who served his country, a huge Clint Eastwood fan and a Mopar guy. So this commercial is pure love for me. I guarantee The Greaseman had a boner when he saw the commercial.

UPDATE:  Here is a link to article regarding Clint's response to the uproar about the ad, as well as at the top you'll now find a link that contains Rove's comment, which I forgot to include.

The Lamestream Media?

The "moral majority" is always raving that the mainstream liberal media is biased and lies, at least when the right doesn't like what that media reports.  You would think if they didn't trust and believe what is printed in the liberal media, they wouldn't be so easily fooled by the likes of The Onion, which they perceive to be part of the liberal media.  In my opinion this is a very good insight into what the right truly believes regarding the veracity of the liberal media.  They may say the media is not to be trusted as a tool to control their nodding masses but it's pretty obvious they know the liberal media is usually spot on regarding most issues.
The Onion, if you didn't know, is a parody online news source.  Today's headline there is basically that Eli Manning, after winning his second Super Bowl yesterday, is asking his dad if he can now finally quit playing football.  Being fooled by The Onion is the modern equivalent of being fooled in the old days by Mad Magazine.  So what does it say that Louisiana Republican Representative John Fleming was fooled by an article in The Onion claiming that Planned Parenthood (ooooh, evil) was readying to open a billion dollar abortion factory.  From Huffington Post this morning: 

Fleming shared a link on Facebook to an article from the satirical newspaper headlined "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."
"More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale," he wrote.

 Unfortunately, you're more likely to get accurate information regarding Planned Parenthood from The Onion than you are by getting your information from the GOP.


(Planned Parenthood) 

I got this chart from an excellent article by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post. 

Drug Test Them Instead

The constant, constant chatter from the right regarding drug testing anyone who receives support from the taxpayers prompts this brief post.  Why is it always so easy to blame the defenseless for something that isn't occurring to veil your contempt for the unfortunate?  Why don't you just come out and say that you don't want to pay taxes for any reasons but most especially for the disadvantaged?
The people who should be drug tested are those who constantly ring this false alarm because they're ignoring the data that repeatedly shows that the incidence of welfare recipients who use drugs is far, far below the percentage of people applying for state and federal jobs who pop on piss tests.  Florida is learning that right now, where I believe the percentage of welfare recipients who've tested positive is 2% and the percentage of people drug tested for other reasons is 7 to 9%.  Welfare recipients want to feed and house their family, and want to get back on their feet and be self sufficient.  There are those wanting to scam the system wherever you look but getting rid of subsidies to Monsanto or getting GE to pay taxes of any kind is much more worth the effort than this old boondoggle.  And don't even get me started on the fact that in Florida the company running the drug tests is a company "formerly" owned by the same Governor who pushed the legislation.
These cries come from the same side of the aisle who claim they want less government, less government intrusion into the rights of citizens and a reduction in government spending.  More money is spent implementing, carrying out and analyzing these programs than the money saved by catching the rare welfare recipient smoking pot.
Cross posted on For Consideration

Mass Exit to the Cayman Islands

 What follows is a guest blog from a long-time friend who's just getting into this blogging thing.  Her pen name is OCBananaGirl and you can see another post of hers on BoSox Tavern.  Below she offers what I think is a very unique and accurate perspective regarding what the 1% value about America versus what the rest of us value about America.

"All day I have been wondering, what if 99% of us only paid a 13% tax rate, would the 1% still want to live in this country? If half of the taxes that pay for roads, bridges, prisons, security, judges, police officers, fire departments, zoos, parks, snow plows, beach replenishment, catastrophe help, flood insurance, social security, medicare, insurance backing our banks, FDA, EPA, medical research, space programs, education, medical research, and wars -- I am sure I have missed so much as I am accustomed to my regular life -- but what if we as US citizens had to live without nearly 1/2 the funding and many of the programs that make us love our country were not available, would we still be so in love with our country?

My thought is, yes, 99% of us would still love our county and the 99% would somehow come together to make the country better, the 99% would find the ingenuity and the get-down-dirty effort to bring this country back. But the real question lies with the 1%.  Would they be able to live with decrepit roads, pot holes, no snow plows, no trash pickup, long lines at hospitals, no flood insurance for the beach front homes, no beaches, no parks to visit on family vacations, no police to protect their property?  And when I wondered about this, I realized that the 1% need the 99% more than the 99% need the 1%. Maybe it is time to realize that the 1% should act on their threats and move their assets to the Cayman Islands because they already have and 99% of us still continue to struggle and yet are proud to call ourselves Americans."

He Went to a Tea Party Instead

I am very disappointed in Tim Thomas' decision to make a political statement by not attending the Boston Bruins' championship visit to the White House.  I find it specious at the very least that he picks this moment, this event, to come out of the closet.  I'm a pretty avid Bruin fan and this is the first I've heard of his political leanings, and to choose a non-political event to make a statement to me smacks of politics.
Oh, I know, you'll say since I'm on the opposite side of the fence from TT that that's biasing my thoughts on this.  Hardly.  I would say the same thing if an apparent liberal athlete had turned down a visit to the White House to see President George W. Bush.  This isn't a political event -- it is a celebration, a reward, an honor to get to visit the President of the United States; and Tim Thomas, being one of only two American-born players on the team, should know this.  In fact, he does know this and, thus, my point.

Here's Tim's statement from his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL." – Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, on his Facebook page, January 23, 2012"

 Don't get me wrong, TT has every right to his views and every right to make this statement -- just don't insult our intelligence.  Also, he needs to understand that what he did was a selfish act, drawing attention to himself and his cause regarding a nonpolitical event, that does nothing but embarrass himself and most importantly the Bruin organization and his teammates.  His teammates and the Bruin brass have been having to deal with the questions regarding Tim's absence for two days now.  And as an avid Bruin fan who happens to be a liberal, I don't appreciate being put in the position of having to either defend or disagree with this stunt.  I know the following will sound foreign to a conservative but, "Hey Tim, if you don't like it, leave it.."  That's the very same thing conservatives say when liberals complain about government; the difference is we have a lot more class regarding picking our moments.
This stunt should not affect the decision the Bruins will have to make in the off season regarding TT's age and contract vis-a-vis Tuukka Rask's age and contract; but if the Bruins decide they don't want to pay two #1 goaltenders #1 goaltender money in long-term contracts and decide to trade Thomas, I hope they trade him to a Canadian team.
My position on this is no different than it was when NASCAR fans in Florida booed First Lady Michelle Obama.  It's a nonpolitical event; she's there for the troops and I would've defended Laura Bush with the same passion.  Tell me, Tim, with a straight face that you wouldn't have gone to the White House to shake the hand of a Republican President?
Give the President his props, he made a couple of zingers at the Bruins' expense.  He rattled off the names of all four New England sports teams, that they'd all won championships lately and that "that's enough Boston."  He also picked on Brad Marchand by calling him the "little ball of hate."

Tebow and Maher

This is in response to an article in the Washington Post that was posted by a friend on Facebook in support of Tebow and my comment trying to explain how a moderate atheist feels about this issue.  So I'll paste in the bulk of that comment and then add another thought to help illuminate my point.

I read the first page and I don't think she gets it either. Maher is to be ignored. I find him funny sometimes but even when he says something that needs to be said that others won't, he says it in such a way to have nothing but a negative impact. I think Tebow's a genuinely good kid and his praising for me, as an atheist, is not over the top. I have no trouble ignoring it. The issue is that an atheist DOES NOT have the equal right to do something similar. Can you imagine someone as famous as him saying at the end of a win "I don't believe in God?" And what it is about praising that atheists have trouble with is the idea of doing it only when there's success involved and the idea that a higher power would have any involvement in choosing sides in a football game. So while I don't agree with all the anger and venom from "my side" on this issue, I can understand it. Just being that angry and nasty does nothing but make people think less of you and make them not willing to listen or care about you or what you think. 

 Let's look at it another way.  Let's suppose the famous athlete who's proselytizing is a fine, upstanding young black man who faces Mecca each time he scores a touchdown and praises Allah when interviewed.  I can assure you those folks coming to the rescue of Tim Tebow would not be coming to this gentleman's defense nor, I believe, would the likes of Bill Maher be making over-the-top critical comments of him.
I obviously feel that Tim Tebow has every right to express his views and I don't feel in this instance that he's trying to judge me or mine or is overtly on a recruiting mission; I just don't feel like everyone is afforded in reality the same rights he's expressing.
Can't we all just get along?  Maybe not.

Hitchens on Kissinger

Not only is this post dedicated to Christopher Hitchens, it is dedicated to Deb, a good friend whose shared respect and admiration for his writings prompted me to endeavor to read his long essays, arguably some of his most important works.  It would be impossible to thank him enough for these invaluable works; the best we can do is honor him by reading them.  They will at once open your eyes, make you question why what he reveals is not much more well known and piss you off to no end.  He would appreciate the latter very much.
Before we get to that though, I would like to share the BBC tribute to Hitch that aired shortly after his passing.

I'm not sure whether I'm going to do one of these each time I read one of his long exposes -- that is my intent -- but I'll share a link to a collection of the best of them (courtesy of The Daily Beast) so that you'll have them in case I fail to follow through.
This first installment is regarding the essay(s) Hitch wrote indicting Henry Kissinger as a war criminal for his hand in sabotaging the 1968 Paris Treaty talks and, therefore, extending the Viet Nam War, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of human beings in total.  (Side note:  As a result of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, Kissinger and Le Durc Tho were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which Tho refused.  Know this before you read Hitch's essay and make sure you have a pail handy to puke in)
The very short version is that Kissinger as a liaison for Richard Nixon, the Republican Nominee for President, secretly had meetings with the South Vietnamese government in the late summer and early fall of 1968, telling them that they could get a better deal in peace talks with them once Nixon was elected than they were currently getting with the Johnson administration or with a potential Humphrey administration -- private citizens undermining the peace negotiations between the U.S. Government and a foreign government.  Now, there's no guarantee the 1968 peace talks would have succeeded in ending the Vietnam War or that, if it had, the war wouldn't have restarted; but the terms of the 1973 Accords are practically identical to what was on the table in 1968.  So I and Hitchens would make the argument that if it succeeded in '73, it would have succeeded in '68.
So what did Nixon and Kissinger have to gain by doing this?  Obviously making the Johnson Administration and its heir apparent Humphrey Administration look inept and, therefore, giving the election to Nixon, only at a cost of thousands and thousands of lives, a small price to pay when you're right.  Right?

It will take you an hour or so to get through that first long essay but I couldn't encourage you more strongly to take the time to do so.  Have a glass of scotch in honor of Hitch while you do so, the time will pass quickly and you'll be ever so glad you did.
I'll leave you with the last two paragraphs of his essay regarding Kissinger and Viet Nam:

When the unpreventable collapse occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam, in April and May 1975, the cost was infinitely higher than it would have been seven years previously. These locust years ended as they had begun--with a display of bravado and deceit. On May 12, 1975, in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge seizure of power, Cambodian gunboats detained an American merchant vessel named the Mayaguez. The ship was stopped in international waters claimed by Cambodia and then taken to the Cambodian island of Koh Tang. In spite of reports that the crew had been released, Kissinger pressed for an immediate face-saving and "credibility"-enhancing strike. He persuaded President Gerald Ford, the untried and undistinguished successor to his deposed former boss, to send in the Marines and the Air Force. Out of a Marine force of 110, 18 were killed and 50 were wounded. Twenty-three Air Force men died in a crash. The United States used a 15,000-ton bomb on the island, the most powerful nonnuclear device that it possessed. Nobody has the figures for Cambodian deaths. The casualties were pointless, because the ship's company of the Mayaguez were nowhere on Koh Tang, having been released some hours earlier. A subsequent congressional inquiry found that Kissinger could have known of this by listening to Cambodian broadcasting or by paying attention to a third-party government that had been negotiating a deal for the restitution of the crew and the ship. It was not as if any Cambodians doubted, by that month of 1975, the willingness of the U.S. government to employ deadly force.
In Washington, D.C., there is a famous and hallowed memorial to the American dead of the Vietnam War. Known as the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial," it bears a name that is slightly misleading. I was present for the extremely affecting moment of its dedication in 1982 and noticed that the list of nearly 60,000 names is incised in the wall not by alphabet but by date. The first few names appear in 1959 and the last few in 1975. The more historically minded visitors can sometimes be heard to say that they didn't know the United States was engaged in Vietnam as early or as late as that. Nor was the public supposed to know. The first names are of the covert operatives, sent in by Colonel Edward Lansdale without congressional approval to support French colonialism. The last names are of those thrown away in the Mayaguez fiasco. It took Henry Kissinger to ensure that a war of atrocity, which he had helped to prolong, should end as furtively and ignominiously as it had begun.

Oh yes, they did

How can someone as successful and, therefore, intelligent as Donald Trump be so delusional.  And with Trump it isn't your entry-level delusion like he could win the Republican nomination (which he did say actually) or that he could win the Presidential election as an independent but it's how he says he'd win...by doing well with "the blacks and unions and Latinos."    See for yourself below, starting at the 3 minute mark.  Please run for President, Donald, please! That I would love to see.



Next we have Millard Romney talking about, of all things, the entitlement society. In his case I think he's so out of touch he truly doesn't know that these "entitlement programs" couldn't be further from entitlements. We pay into Social Security, unemployment, etc, so that they'll be there when we need them; something that someone who's inherited his worth and, therefore, has enormous wealth would never understand the need for.
No video this time, just a reason to get you to read yet another spot-on article by Robert Creamer, from which I'll share a few quotes to lure you in.

It really takes chutzpa for a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to rail against an "entitlement society." Here is a guy who got his start in life the old-fashioned way -- he inherited it.

No, Romney is much more interested in privatizing Social Security and Medicare so his Wall Street buddies can get their hands on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds -- even though that would eliminate the guaranteed benefits that are so critical to the health and welfare of America's seniors.

In fact, he seems to agree with the Republican leaders of the House who say that unemployment benefits discourage people from looking for work. Guess Mitt has never been one of the five people competing for every available job. Oh, I forgot, Mitt says he is "unemployed" too. Talk about out of touch.

And then thanks to my friend, Lady A, for pointing out the clip below. You can read her at Thoughts From 16th Avenue. It's always nice to see the Faux News vetting system fall short.


RJ, you'll be glad to know I decided not to steal your "They Said It" idea. :)

Creating false enemies

Sparked by another seemingly innocent graphic going around Facebook, I feel the need to point out the blind, ignorant, one-way thinking of the further-to-the-right-everyday crowd, the war-against-Christmas crowd, the war-against-the-poor crowd.  The graphic at issue simply has an arrow pointing to the poster with a holiday theme and the words "This person DOES NOT say Happy Holidays; this person says Merry Christmas...get over it!"  This is a perfect example of creating an enemy, creating something bad that doesn't really exist as a way to be divisive and as a way to rally one side (the goodie goodies of the right) against the evil liberal elitist, god-hating heathens of the left.  It's the same ploy they use to try to make you think there are people who are against the troops when they say things like "Support the troops...there are far too many people who don't," when in fact neither they nor you know a single soul who doesn't believe in supporting the troops.  As it relates to the Christmas versus Holiday War, the same rebuttal applies -- you don't know a solitary soul who has a problem with someone saying Merry Christmas but the Merry Christmas crowd surely has a problem with you NOT saying Merry Christmas.  "You MUST say Merry Christmas or else we're falling into a godless society or worse."  Whatever happened to free speech and freedom of religion?  Being told you must believe and observe the way they do is quite the opposite, yet they like to use your lack of agreement with them as a sign that you're oppressing them, when in fact it is they who are trying to oppress you.  You have to admit it's brilliant and it works, unfortunately, over and over and over.

There are correlations with the above to an outstanding editorial comment by Rachel Maddow last night.  I don't want to be too wordy.  I'll just invite you to watch this 12 minute clip and pay attention to things like voter fraud, farm dust, In God We Trust and drug testing people who are on unemployment or welfare and look for the ulterior motive. I couldn't more strongly urge you to watch this clip. It is one of the best essays I've seen in some time. Thank you, Rachel. It's important we all realize what the true motives and ideologies are of these people.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Which is a nice segue into a very brief discussion regarding Ayn Rand.  What these people really want is a society like the one envisioned by Rand in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, one that goes against the progressive value of togetherness and replaced by a simpler dog-eat-dog model.  I would encourage you to read The Real Attack on the Spirit of Christmas Comes From the Right Wing, the latest article by one of my favorite writers, Robert Creamer, where he outlines very well the endgame of this ideology and how it contrasts not only with our progressive ideology but quite often with the same people who support it, another example of the hypocrisy of the love thy neighbor religious right.  Below is my favorite quote:

Progressive values: that we're all in this together, not all in this alone; unity not division; hope not fear; equality not subjugation; the premise that if each of us is better educated all of us will be wiser; that it is not true that for me to be richer you have to be poorer -- but rather that if each of us is more prosperous, all of us will have more opportunity; that our success comes from cooperation and mutual respect. These progressive values are the most precious assets that will give human beings the ability to make it through that gauntlet -- and to create a truly democratic society.

I would also encourage you to read my friend RJ's review of The Fountainhead, "Another Selfish Manifesto Ending, at Heels N Martinis.

If we don't talk again beforehand, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, my friends.

Christopher Hitchens

From those of us who are boring and irrelevant, a toast of scotch to you, Christopher Hitchens.  It'll have to be Johnny Walker Green, since I have no Black and don't really care for it; but we can still use your term, Mr. Walker's Amber Restorative.
He was an atheist (or more accurately by his definition an antitheist) and an asshole (two of my favorite traits), an enigma, a provocateur, a satirist, an intellectual elitist, a bon viveur; he was someone I disagreed with nearly as often as I agreed but he was always eloquent and interesting and relevant. As he said, he was friends with Salman Rushdie, was nearly scratched by Mother Theresa and nearly spanked by Margaret Thatcher.

 My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.

To those of us who wish we could be writers, he is both a goal and the reason we don't even try.  Why bother if your best isn't even half as good as he was at his worst?
True, he was an egomaniac -- how could anyone who condemned Bll Clinton, Henry Kissinger and Ghandi, amongst many others, not be?  But he was conversely very modest.  You couldn't help but be fascinated listening to him argue a point as eloquently as anyone ever, much like his idols Paine and Jefferson and Orwell, even a point or issue that you vehemently disagreed with.
Hitchens is very, very high on my list of people who are the answer to the question, "If you could 'come back' as anyone who ever lived, who would it be?  That is due in large part to his success as a philosopher and provocateur obviously but in equal measure due to the way he lived life and approached his intellectual discoveries and defense thereof...he didn't give a shit whether you agreed or not.  Where we almost always agreed is the subject of anti-totalitarianism, which includes religion.
From The Wiki:

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens described himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens said that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion."^[17] He argued that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

 Anti-war British politician George Galloway, on his way to testify in front of a United States Senate sub-committee investigating the scandals in the U.N. Oil for Food program, called Hitchens a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay",^[155] to which Hitchens quickly replied, "only some of which is true".^[156] Later, in a column for Slate promoting his debate with Galloway which was to take place on 14 September 2005, he elaborated on his prior response: "He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a 'popinjay' (true enough, since the word's original Webster's definition is a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest)."^[157]

There are many video interviews of Hitchens on shows like "The Daily Show," where you can get glimpses of the large intellect, ego and humor of the man; but where you really get insight into who he was and what he believed was in the many interviews he did with Charlie Rose.  Unfortunately, the Charlie Rose website does not offer embeds.  So I'll invite you to this link, which is the last of the 13 appearances by Christopher Hitchens with Charlie Rose, a whole hour from 2010.

Are liberals never satisfied?

In a word, no, which is a good thing in the sense that it keeps things going forward, another reason we're also called progressives.  Obviously it's a "bad" thing when it makes you always look at the glass as being half empty instead of half full, which is paradoxical to me because I feel liberals overall are optimists, not pessimists.
This discussion is prompted by Jonathan Chait's provocative article in New York Magazine, Debunking Obama's So-Called Leadership Failure.  While the article is not completely taking liberals to task --

Okay, so if Obama openly endorses a bipartisan plan, he’s killing it. And if he keeps his distance, he’s also killing it. What if he tries to directly negotiate a deficit reduction plan behind closes doors? Well, Obama did that, too, this last summer. Republicans opposed it as well.

-- it does most certainly do that.  "Various fiscal scolds have been scolding President Obama for failing to use his mind-control powers to force Republicans to accept a tax hike."

And it is true that many liberals look too fondly at historic Democratic Presidents, seemingly forgetting the warts and the fact that at the time we were just as critical and not satisfied with that President as we are with President Obama today.  Now, to be fair, that particular predilection is not owned by Democrats.  Republicans too have a tendency to view past Republican Presidents this way.  The difference is they view current Republican Presidents with the same rose colored glasses.
I think what's useful about this discussion is an effort in determining whether it is overall a good thing or bad thing that liberals are generally never satisfied.  I don't think there's much debate about whether we are, in fact, never satisfied, though you're certainly entitled to disagree.  What results from our tendency to view things the way we do is a much more accurate view of reality.  We tend to care very little (especially us Independents) whether there's a D or an R in front of your name; we will scrutinize your words and actions about as fairly as possible, given that all human beings have a lean towards their personal biases.

Also Jonathan Chait was interviewed regarding his article by Chris Matthews on Hardball along with Salon's Joan Walsh; and Joan Walsh makes a very good statement regarding our values about 3/4 of the way through this interview.  It's a lively and fun poke at ourselves, well worth watching.  (Chris doesn't interrupt as much as he usually does)
 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So I agree, we're never satisfied but I don't think that at all means we're not mostly reasonable.  Everyone's unreasonable sometimes.

Disgusting, ugly Americans

By now I'm sure most of you, even if you're not Nascar fans, have heard that an audible portion of the crowd at Miami/Homestead Speedway booed Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden yesterday.

They were there as Grand Marshals, which in Nascar speak means you get to say "Gentlemen, start your engines."  The First and Second ladies were there to honor the troops and get out the word about their troop related causes, which is what First Ladies do.
Now, I know all about free speech and don't even try to sidetrack the discussion.  If you can picket a soldier's funeral, you can certainly boo the First Lady.  That doesn't mean that these "expressions" are not classless.  Since when do we as a country boo the First Lady?  Well, since Hilary Clinton was First Lady, that's when.  When the right boos the First Lady, it's a free speech issue; but if the left were to boo a First Lady, which I have never heard happen, then it would be unAmerican, unpatriotic, disrespectful.  Well, I submit to you that booing the First Lady is all of those things.

Now, let's be clear that I have nothing against Laura Bush.  I'm just using her as an example.  If it isn't alright to boo someone who negligently killed a young man in an auto accident as a teenager but wasn't punished due to her family's political influence, then it isn't alright to boo this First Lady just because she's a Democrat at best and, at worse, black.  Can't we in this country at least show enough class to not boo the First Lady?  President George W. Bush's policies, actions, lack of actions and words made the left in this country every bit as angry at him as the right is at President Obama but I never once heard his wife booed.  Why?  I can only mostly speak for myself but it's because we recognize who's The Decider and who isn't.  And honestly,  on the right there is no limit, no guideline, no civil restraint, no modulation.  Name five of the nastiest, most hateful political pundits you can think of, and they're all on the right and have enormous followings.

Lastly, I want to challenge Nascar to come out publicly and denounce this as unAmerican.  They won't because they'll claim to be apolitical but they're anything but apolitical.  If the same sanctioning body that shoves the American flag, the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance down your throat at every race doesn't come out and call this unpatriotic, they'll be showing you just exactly where they stand.  Again, these ladies were there to support the troops (supporting the troops, something the right claims to own exclusively) and yet they boo her.  As someone said to me, "They might as well have pissed on the flag" because booing her in this instance is booing her cause, the troops.

And an added note to the right, now that I've searched the net in an effort to see whether Nascar had condemned this and seen the internet exploding with a disgusting display of the right, in typical fashion, lying about how if it's fair to boo George Bush or Sarah Palin, it's fair to boo Michelle Obama.  Listen fucknucks, look at yourselves in the mirror and see what you've become -- how nasty, ugly, disgusting, trivial you are.  You'll say anything to defend your ugliness.  Booing someone who is running for public office is NOT the same thing.  And I won't even begin to address and certainly not give examples of some of the name calling directed at the First Lady that I saw on some very high profile right wing blogs.  Thank you for continuing to scratch a big ugly scar into what once was the most envied country on the planet.  You should be ashamed of yourselves but I know it's not in your DNA.  Good people have the capacity to look in the mirror and fairly judge their actions and feel remorse accordingly.  All I see from the right these days is a never-ending capacity for ugliness and hate in response to being called out.

UPDATE:  And now one of the ugliest Americans of them all has weighed in, saying the reason they booed the First Lady is because she's uppity and they don't like uppity.  That's not very well disguised, Rush.  I'm surprised you just didn't say the N word because that's exactly what you meant and exactly what your dittohead listeners heard.

Class Warfare it is not

Pointing out that the policies and laws of this country favor the 1% over the 99% is not class warfare, no matter how many times Republicans and their paid wagging tongues say it. And kudos to the Democrats in Congress who FINALLY seem to be growing a pair, though to be honest they wouldn't be so bold (and never have been) if the American public wasn't overwhelmingly demanding it.

Another great article by Robert Creamer on this point:

Long-term, widely shared prosperity requires that the incomes of everyday people increase in proportion to their increasing productivity. If it doesn't, they simply won't have the money to buy the increased number of goods and services that they themselves have the ability to produce. That is the formula for economic stagnation and the end of the American dream.
The inability of the Super Committee to reach an agreement is not a reflection on the "intransigence" of both sides and "unwillingness" to compromise. The far right that now dominates the Republican Party insists on positions that fall far outside of mainstream views of everyday American voters. They want changes in the American social contract that will destroy the middle class.

 
To me it's not a coincidence that the rise in the U.S. deficit coincides with the rise in the corporate money influence in our politics through the Super PACs and lobbyists. Why is that? Look at the fall of the tax rates for corporations and billionaires over the same period. We would not be having the deficit problems, the rotting of our infrastructure, the cutback in education and services to the truly needy if those tax rates were even half of what they once were.  Fighting for something even remotely resembling fairness, a level playing field for all Americans, is not class warfare.

If you're not into words but would like to see things in a more graphical form.  This excellent article is just for you.  It lays things out for you pretty clearly.

And a report released just last week shows that the middle class in this country is shrinking.  Now, that would be a good thing if it meant those leaving the middle class were joining the upper class.  That is hardly the case though.  Those leaving the middle class are joining the lower class.  Being poor must be really popular because more and more Americans are choosing to be poor, at least according to the dimwits of this country who feel that people are poor because they're lazy and choose to be.

So standing up for ourselves is not class warfare.  What is class warfare is calling the opposite class warfare so that you can hide the class warfare that exists.  It's a tried and true tactic but I'm hopeful that the American people will finally see an issue at a better percentage than 60/40.

Who's Got Your Back?

That's a very good question that unfortunately doesn't have a good, strong answer.
We do know, however, who has the Republican Party's back and vice versa.  Check out this scoop by Chris Hayes
 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's always been about power, influence and control.  These people have never cared for a nanosecond about the vast majority of us who don't have money or power or influence individually, but watch how they react when we gather together to exert what power we do have.  They will do anything and stop at nothing to keep what they have, much of it earned dishonestly; and they'll lie to your face in an effort to keep you on their side, while they're picking your pocket again.

Also, these folks talk like they have your back but everything they do, if you're really paying attention, says quite the opposite.I'm going to ask you to watch another video clip because I can't figure out how to do a screen capture from a web video but this clip is only three minutes long. It's from The Rachel Maddow Show from the other night talking about the obviously sick young man who shot a rifle at the White House. What makes me want to vomit though is what you'll see starting at the 1:15 point of this video, where she's showing the subtitle that Faux News used to tell this story, calling him the "Occupy Shooter." There is zero evidence that he has anything to do with the Occupy Movement or any movement. When is the 40% of this country that watches Fox's criminal behavior finally going to wise up that this outfit never has and never is and never will be about facts or news? They're only about keeping you scared, misinformed and on the side that pays them to do what they do.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This N That

Or That N This, if you insist on being disagreeable.

How is it that Congressman and Senators dramatically increase their wealth while being paid by us to be public servants?  One way is the Newt Gingrich way, selling your status for money when all that money buys you is potential influence.  Another way is through insider information on stocks.  Watch this 60 Minutes episode and become upset that it's not illegal, even if we all recognize it as very unethical.

If you didn't already feel they weren't working for our best interests, this ought to seal the deal.  The more outraged we get about this stuff, the more we publicly demand change with our voices and our votes.  Are you outraged yet?

While we still don't have a jobs bill, Congress found the time to decide that pizza is a vegetable.  Why would they do that, you ask?  Because they were lobbied to do so by the companies that make money from pizza being served in our kids' school, whether it's healthy for them or not.

Dorli Rainey is my hero.  Who's she?  She's the 84-year-old woman who was pepper sprayed at Occupy Seattle.  She was interviewed by Keith Olbermann, who asked her how she was doing.  Her reply is priceless, "I'm feeling great," she said. "I'm so energized. It's amazing what a little pepper spray will do for you."  Watch the complete interview below.


This letter, written in response to yet another of those pictures you see with the fine young American's face and a letter held up next to it explaining how hard they work and everyone else should shut up and do the same, is the best and most thorough and completely logical response I have yet seen.  It's perfect, except it's too long; but I guess it has to be to explain thoroughly what shouldn't have to be explained at all.  If you have not read this response, whether you're inclined to agree with the 99% or you think the whole thing is bullshit, I beg you to read the response that's linked at the beginning of this paragraph.  Here's a very small sample:  "Do you really want the bar set this high?  Do you really want to live in a society where just getting by requires a person to hold down two jobs and work 60 to 70 hours a week?  Is that your idea of the American Dream?"  I'm also starting to wonder about the veracity of these letters supporting the 1%.  I smell a PAC, maybe even a Super PAC.


Did you hear about the reporter and camera person for The Daily Caller (yes, the right wing rag that's been overly harsh and unfair and inaccurate about OWS) being knocked down by police at Occupy Wall Street?  Guess who came to their aide?  Yup, the very same protesters Michelle Fields had been demonizing.  Read the story here.

Dishonorable Mention

What happens when one party doesn't care about deficits until the opposing party is in the White House?  What happens to deficits when one party only asks the working class to pay off the debt that that party helped build by giving tax breaks to the richest one percent and to corporations who pay no taxes?  What happens when one party convinces its base that deficit reduction at a time of zero growth is more important than creating jobs?  What happens when one party represents the 1% percent at all cost and at the peril of the 99%?
What happens when the other party doesn't have the balls to stand up against that first party and for the people they claim to represent?
You get a gridlocked, do-nothing Congress, an economy that's working great for the 1% and failing the 99% and a Super Committee proposing benefit cuts like these:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

 If you hadn't yet realized that the Republican Party's mission of doing anything to make sure Obama was a one-term President was being done counter to what was in the best interests of the country as a whole or that "anything" was meant literally, then you should know it now.  Semper FU indeed!  If that doesn't piss you off and make your blood boil, nothing will.