The Sky is Falling

h/t via Illusory Tenant

Regarding the outcry from conservatives about the defeat of the John Doe amendment which would have provided immunity for anyone who alerted authorities about supposed terrorists, and the accusations were found to be false ... this comment by Steve:

Clearly, the way to fight terrorism is to encourage as many people as possible to cry wolf. Surely there’s no way that could be bad for us in the long run.

Hee hee!

The Homophobes Are Coming

h/t Working for Change

This is important. I've already sent in my two-cents to our senators. You can too.

President Bush just doesn't seem to get it. He continues to propose right-wing nominees for top posts in our government as if Congress was still controlled by rubber-stamp Republicans, eager to please their fundamentalist base.

The latest in Bush's series of inappropriate and ideologically-slanted nominees is Dr. James Holsinger of Kentucky, whom Bush has nominated to the post of United States Surgeon General. Holsinger has exhibited a pattern of hostility to gays and lesbians that is evident throughout his career. Consider:

Dr. Holsinger, along with his wife, co-founded the Hope Springs Community Church in Lexington, which operates a so-called "ex-gay" ministry -- with the type of "conversion therapy" that has been condemned by both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association.

Holsinger currently serves as president of the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church; in this capacity he opposed a decision to allow a lesbian to be an associate pastor, and supported a pastor who would not permit an openly gay man to join the church.

He also authored a white paper in 1991 -- "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality" -- trying to make a medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. (A University of Minnesota professor on human sexuality has said this paper would have received a "failing grade" in his class.)

Holsinger is, of course, entitled to his private religious views, however narrow and exclusionary they may be. But the U.S. Surgeon General needs to be the chief medical officer for ALL Americans -- not just the heterosexual ones. Tell your Senators to reject this nomination and force President Bush to choose competence over ideology for his next nominee.

Are You Awake, Mr. President?

The vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, will be briefly in power for a second time according to this report from MSNBC. The reason for his assumption of power on Saturday is the president will be under the effects of anesthesia while a colonoscopy is performed.

Apparently, a previous operation was performed in 2002. At the time:

The 2002 procedure began at 7:09 a.m and ended at 7:29 a.m. Bush woke up two minutes later but did not resume his presidential office until 9:24 a.m., after [Doctor] Tubb conducted an overall examination. Tubb said he recommended the additional time to make sure the sedative had no aftereffects.

My question: How could the doctor tell the difference?

Stick Them Where?

"Stick Magnetic Ribbons on Your SUV"

by the Asylum Street Spankers



For my friend, Fred. Oh the idiocy!

More Irony

This is really bad. I wrote a post about some of the nastiness from the right wing (courtesy of This Modern World). The responses have been interesting.

Tom McMahon sent me a comment with a link to his site where he had posted about Hunter Thompson. I zipped over and found that some of the comments matched in ferocity and venom those I posted earlier.

As I said in the comments, echoing something capper said, I know it is true that there are those on the left who can wallow in the depths too. It's just sad to see.

To be fair, below are some of the comments left with Tom. Sorry you had to face that, Tom. I could share some stuff that equals that from one of our local cheddarsphereans ... but, I guess, what is the point. He's not worth the energy and nor are the people who commented at your site.

This guy started out ok, but then the weirdness kicked in.

Mr McMahon Its so obvious that you have read little of Hunter S. Thompsons' literary genius. The man was the most gifted and articulate Social and political commentator of the 20th century. He was a man who lived without fear and lived fully everyday of his life.

Your problem with HST is that he lived his life his way without apology. He lived outside your preconceived ideas of right and wrong and made it work. He proved that you can live a productive life and still ingest whatever you want without losing your intelligence or success. Not everyone is capable of living that lifestyle and no one should try to immitate his life. Yet he did live his life without hipocrisy.

So all I have left to say to you, you bloated greedhead nazi is Fuck you and your GOP horse that you rode in on.

This fellow (appropriately named Chris ... inside joke) was lost from the beginning.

Here we have a bunch of uptight greedy-eyed squares attempting to grind Hunter's image into the dirt. Screw on your heads, Dr. Thompson was one of the most creative and brilliant men in literature this century, do you read Thomas? Obviously not enough. Hunter stayed young and idealistic until he died, you, however, my fatbodied Tommy, are a rotting corpse with no life left in you, don't be envious, loosen your collar and let some blood flow to your oxygen deprived brain meats.

This person wouldn't even include a name. Coward.

When you die, there will be no one will be SOOOO sick of you because you are a talentless partisan hack.

Take a break from force feeding us with the leftovers of your moral self f***atio and learn that the drugs Hunter S. Thompson took are just as bad as the cheeseburgers you slug down like ambrosia.

How stereotypical of a truly revolting kind of conservativfe to judge a man's life not by his merit but by GASP drug consumption.

You are a revolting pig of a man whose simple mindedness would never be able to grasp the brilliance of a man who searched for truth.

You could not find truth if it were right below the pompous tint in your squinted eyes and the gluttony of your corpulent double chin.

Last one. There's more, but I think you all get the point.

hey you cheese burger engulfing Nazi, why dont get your thumb out of your ass and come to terms with the fact that he is a success of an author to some and a revolutionary who lived by his own terms to others.... you know what fuck you mussolini im gonna go get an h.s.t. tattoo now, eat cock!



Sorry, Tom.

Fox Reality

The wingnuts love Fox. Why not, it feeds into their twisted sense of what's real. Witness this from This Modern World.

As Tom Tomorrow points out, the vote was actually 52 in favor of pullout. It fell short of the 60 votes needed. But Fox would have you believe a majority voted to shoot down the plan.

I wonder how Fred at Real Debate would see this?

Irony Never Sleeps

h/t This Modern World

A sampling of the email Markos received from Bill O’Reilly’s viewers after Bill O’Reilly — who later in the same broadcast professed complete computer illiteracy — denounced Daily Kos as a "hate site."

U/R A DIRTY RECTUM LICKING COMMIE SLIME MAGGOT!

BORN FROM KARL MARX’S ROTTING FECES.

Your Evil, Fascist Organization.

Fascist scum like your organization need to be removed and sent to another universe from this one. Evil prevails in your organization, and I hope you will receive the reckoning you deserve when all of you meet your Makers. A gentle riddance to thou in the interim.

You…
…suck beyond belief. Hurry up and die.

I have never seen so much hate

I have never seen so much hate you would embarrassed Nazi’s

Why can’t people like you just make a living, instead of hating everyone else?

Are you all muslims?

I just say fuck you, asshole

Kos

I hope you all die a slow death. Much like you wish on good honest people like T. Snow, the Pope, etc. Liberal Fucks! I hope you choke on the smog & drown in the global warming waters caused by cows. You people are so stupid.

IE: San Fransisco is much better now a days since the liberal invasion 1/2 century ago. Hmmmm: It’s full of disease, poverty, queers(goes with disease…..), and polution. You people can’t keep your backyard clean, but cont. to impose your views on other parts of the country. I’m so sad your still around. I’m sure you’ll die off sooner than later. Much like you morals have. Go eat some grass

Anyone who’s been on or mentioned by one of these shows knows there will be a flood of this sewage in their inbox soon thereafter. O’Reilly certainly knows it as well.

Reads like some of the high-minded commenting found at Real Debate and Badger Blogger here in SE Wisconsin.

Just a Question

What do you think of this statement and do you think it is a fair one to make (bonus points if you can guess who said this)?

"My sons are 25 and 30. They are blond-haired and blue-eyed. One amendment today said we could not sell guns to anybody under drug treatment. So does that mean if you go into a black community, you cannot sell a gun to any black person ...."

Howling at the Moon

Rick Esenberg recently commented about a post by Mike McCabe (some Democratic party guy ... I don't really know all their names) that, Esenberg said, ranted a bit about the listening audience of Charlie Sykes' show, and, presumably, talk radio in general (I have no link because one was not provided and anyway, that's not really what this post is about).

I found this paragraph at the end of Esenberg's post interesting.

I am gobsmacked by the fact that a presumably sophisticated and intelligent public figure actually thinks that talk radio's audience is made up of bible thumping young earth creationists. If you really think that folks you don't agree with must be a bunch of mouth-breathing morons, I suppose you never will encounter any ideas but your own and will continue to commit howler after howler in your isolation. If you think that you and your friends are oh-so-much-smarter, why take anyone else seriously? Why take the time to make sure that you know what you're talking about?

Aside from Esenberg playing a little bit of the victim game (oh those darn libs think they are so smart), one cannot help but wonder whether he feels as gobsmacked by the fact that four of the Republican candidates for president have admitted to disbelieving evolution in favor of the notion of the 6,000 year-old Earth (Sen. John McCain, Sen. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Tom Tancredo).

Oh those creationist-believing Christian candidates, they think they are so much more inteliigent by design than the rest of us. Talk about howler after howler just to capture votes.

Why We Love Jess

"What's with the weird obsession most of the Lefty Blogger Guys in Milwaukee have with Jessica McBride? By comparison John Hinckley had a take-her-or-leave-her attitude about Jodie Foster. I really don't get it. "

This question was broached by Tom McMahon in a previous post and I thought it deserving of an answer because, unlike what J-J-J-Jeff Wagner said about those of us who follow McBride ("the kook fringe ...insanely jealous of her..."), we are all relatively sane individuals.

So why the attention?

For myself, McBride deserves the attention because she is an embarrassment claiming to be a professional journalist. She mocks the history and the role of the press every time she puts fingers to keyboard. She disregards Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." She misses the point of Napoleon Bonaparte who said: "Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets."

Journalists are not here to cater to the party line, which McBride unfailingly does; they are the bulwark of our freedom. That's why she annoys me so much when she so freely besmirches this respectable institution and yet claims to be a card-carrying member. Her forays into commentary contain a disregard for fact and decency that begs for attention.

Bill Christofferson and Mike Plaisted also agreed to comment. Christofferson said:

"It's why Willie Sutton said he robbed banks; "that's where the money is." McBride is an easy and inviting target because she is so wrong so often. You might disagree with (Charlie) Sykes, for example, and challenge him on his view on issues, but you won't catch him making inane comments or stupid mistakes on a daily basis. That is what sets McBride apart.

"She is in a class by herself -- a self-centered ditz, with very little knowledge, who got built up and promoted way beyond her ability and capacity. Her commentary might be tolerable from a teen, but not from someone who presents herself as an insightful adult."

And from Plaisted:

I agree with Bill that one reason she gets so much negative attention from us is because she is such an easy target. Much more so when she had the radio show -- she was such an outrageously bad radio personality, listening to her was like watching a train wreck -- horrible, but somehow engrossingly bad.

I try to give her as little thought as possible. However, when I do, I envision her as Margaret Holihan, played by Sally Kellerman in the original M*A*S*H. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye described her as a "typical Army clown". I think that's as apt a description for McBride -- inserting wing-nut for Army -- for the same reasons.

We do have to be a bit cognizant, it seems to me, that part of her target-worthy status is because she is a woman. Although the WISN radio geeks don't have vanity blogs, a minor nitwit like Jay Weber is just as insignificant, intellectually offensive and politically vapid as McBride.

But somehow, the same sort of nonsense coming from a smug, elitist woman has much more of a fingernail-on-the-chalkboard quality to it and is so much more fun to criticize. I don't think this is sexist -- she just stands out from the white-boys who usually run the GOP talking points. Her (literally)air-brushed self-image wrapped up with her nose-in-the-air sanctimony and the fact that she is so marvelously wrong all the time just makes her too wonderfully bad for words. It would be blogger malpractice not to take on her glamour-puss at every opportunity.

Now Tom, are you going to ask the same question of those who find every word written by Eugene Kane fodder for comment?

Shallow Jess

Jessica McBride's lack of intellectual depth is really sometimes stunning. Her most recent plunge into the shallow end of the pool regards an article in the New York Times, written by Adam Liptak, and titled, "For Libby, Bush Seemed to Alter His Texas Policy." She claims in her post titled, "The Libby False Analogy," that Mr. Liptak has provided a false analogy in the article by comparing Bush's pardon of Libby to a lack of pardons in capital crimes when Bush was governor of Texas. She huffs:

The critics say that Bush's action in the Libby case is wrong becaus he didn't commute the sentences of many death row inmates in Texas.

For starters, obviously, the death row inmates committed capital crimes. Actually, that's the end of the argument. They are murderers with special circumstances.

So: No story.

She concludes by saying the New York Times finally comes up with reasons that prove the analogy doesn't hold water, but these are buried ... bad New York Times.

I have read and reread the article and can only come to one conclusion ... McBride's treading water and barely staying afloat when all she needs is to put her feet down to touch bottom.

The article had nothing to do with what critics of the Libby action may be saying. The article is entirely a discussion about the history of Bush's policy toward clemency, which has been (essentially) if you're guilty of the crime, you pay the consequences. Liptak writes:

In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Bush expressed no doubts about his guilt. He said he respected the jury’s verdict, and he did not pardon Mr. Libby, leaving him a convicted felon. And Mr. Bush acted before the courts had completed their review of his appeal.

Liptak then ponders whether Bush has changed his standard for clemency because it has been documented that clemency, for Bush, was reserved for cases of "demonstrable actual innocence," a far different cry from his decision in the Libby case. The article concludes with this:

In June, before the Libby commutation, The Austin American-Statesman reviewed Mr. Bush’s record on clemency as president and governor in a front-page article. The headline said, "Bush history gives Libby little hope for a pardon."

The article simply explores this seeming discontinuity of Bush's action towards Libby ... at no time making a statement about the right or wrong of Bush's decision.

That is a far cry from the insinuations by McBride ... insinuations that have no basis in fact. But then, McBride has never been one to let facts get in the way of a partisan hack piece. Quick, someone throw her an inflatable doll, she's sinking fast.

She's So Silly

How stupid and annoying is this woman? Jessica McWitless notes this paragraph from the British Newspaper website Telegraph.co.uk, from an article titled "45 Muslim doctors planned US terror raids":

The three "cyber terrorists" - a British national and two who had been given the right to live in Britain - are facing lengthy jail sentences after admitting using the internet to spread al-Qa'eda propaganda inciting Muslims to a violent holy war and to murder non-believers.

They had close links with al-Qa'eda in Iraq and believed they had to fight jihad against a global conspiracy by kuffars, or non-believers, to wipe out Islam.

You mean Iraq is part of the global war on terror? Who knew.

Well, we know now. They weren't and wouldn't have been there but for the actions of this incredibly corrupt administration. Gee, who would have known they would go where it was easiest to strike at Americans.

McWitless and her fellow co-travellers in lunacy (i.e. most conservative bloggers) are like little kids confronted with an empty cookie jar. They ate all the cookies, but having discovered that someone else might have had a cookie, once upon a time ... well, you know who's to blame for eating the cookies.

Thick as a Brick

More evidence that many conservatives are very twisted and very odd people ... regarding the script being passed around that the Libby episode was purely political (you know who is leading the charge). This from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, via Anonymous Liberal (the highlighted text mine):

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political." I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as "overwhelming" and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

Things Going for Waukesha, Part Two

Todd Rosiak provides early coverage of the Marquette Golden Eagles b-ball team. Lazar Hayward, Rosiak said, looked especially impressive. Read more here.

For more information on the major NCAA basketball team in Waukesha ... oh, so sorry, there ain't one.

Things Going for Waukesha, Part One

If Yi Jianlian and his handlers ultimately decide that the Milwaukee Bucks are not a good fit for his talents, he can always play for the Waukesha pro basketball team.

Oh, forgot. Ain't one.

Jessica Mcpocrisy

Oh heck, I just commented over at Jessica McBride's (first time for everything), but really should have posted it here. Here is what poor Jessica has to say about Scooter Libby:

Remember that Libby was convicted of lying in a politically-motivated investigation into something that wasn't a crime. In other words, he covered up something that wasn't criminal.

Hmmm. Replace the name Libby with Clinton and you get a healthy dose of understanding into conservative hypocrisy.

You Can Call Me Scooter

In lieu of recent events, I have decided to undertake the legal means to rename my children. I'm certain that my wife and I do the best we can raising the three little urchins ... others have said as much, too. But a little precaution can go a long way.

So, from now on when referring to my 11 year-old son, my six year-old daughter, and my baby daughter, please call them Scooter. At least I can be assured that should any of the three become involved in some unforeseen illegal activty, their chances of avoiding jail when convicted (like Scott "Scooter" Jensen), or receiving amnesty though having lied during trial (like "Scooter" Libby) are increased.

You can never be too careful. I could take the extra step and have them join the Republican party, but that's going just a bit too far.

Proud to be Liberal

This piece by Theodore C.Sorensen is long, but I will print it in its entirety because it is that important. This is why I am proud to be a liberal, this is what America should be about. I, too, would like to hear my Democratic nominee for President read this acceptance speech.

On the 15th of July, 1960, Senator John F. Kennedy accepted his party’s presidential nomination at the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. In his remarks, made at a moment of high tension in the cold war, Kennedy asserted that the United States was at "a turning point in history" and called on his listeners to be "pioneers" in a "New Frontier" of "uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus."

Collaborating with Kennedy on the speech was a thirty-two-year-old aide named Theodore C. Sorensen, to whom Kennedy was known to refer as his "intellectual blood bank." With Sorensen’s help, Kennedy would earn a reputation as one of American history’s great orators and provide a bold new vision for the nation.

Today, we are at another moment of high tension, the result of a disastrous war abroad and division and drift at home. Like Kennedy, the next Democratic nominee, whoever he or she might be, will have a similar opportunity to form a new vision for America and to reestablish its moral leadership in the world. To encourage such boldness of thinking, we, too, tapped Kennedy’s intellectual blood bank. We called Theodore C. Sorensen and asked him to write the speech he would most want the next Democratic nominee to give at the party convention in Denver in August 2008. We requested that he proceed with no candidate in mind and that he give no consideration to expediency or tactics—in other words, that he write the speech of his dreams. Here is the speech he sent us.

There will be more debates this fall. I hereby notify my Republican opponent that I have purchased ninety minutes of national network television time for each of the six Sunday evenings preceding the presidential election, and here and now invite and challenge him to share that time with me to debate the most serious issues facing the country, under rules to be agreed upon by our respective designees meeting this week with a neutral jointly selected statesman.

Let me assure all those who may disagree with my positions that I shall hear and respect their views, not denounce them as unpatriotic as has so often happened in recent years. I will wage a campaign that relies not on the usual fear, smear, and greed but on the hopes and pride of all our citizens in a nationwide effort to restore comity, common sense, and competence to the White House.

In this campaign, I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest. Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal, in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals—liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, but rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, and more prosperous America.

They are the giants on whose shoulders I now stand, giants who made this a better, fairer, safer, stronger, more united America.

By making me your nominee, you have placed your trust in the American people to put aside irrelevant considerations and judge me solely on my qualifications to lead the nation. You have opened the stairway to what Teddy Roosevelt called the "bully pulpit." With the help of dedicated Americans from our party, every party, and no party at all, I intend to mount that stairway to preach peace for our nation and world.

My campaign will be based on my search for the perfect political consensus, not the perfect political consultant. My chief political consultant will be my conscience.

Thank you for your applause, but I need more than your applause and approval. I need your prayers, your votes, your help, your heart, and your hand. The challenge is enormous, the obstacles are many. Our nation is emerging from eight years of misrule, a dark and difficult period in which our national honor and pride have been bruised and battered. But we are neither beaten nor broken. We are not helpless or afraid; because in this country the people rule, and the people want change.

True, some of us have been sleeping for these eight long years, while our nation’s values have been traduced, our liberties reduced, and our moral authority around the world trampled and shattered by a nightmare of ideological incompetence. But now we are awakening and taking our country back. Now people all across America are starting to believe in America again. We are coming back, back to the heights of greatness, back to America’s proud role as a temple of justice and a champion of peace.

The American people are tired of politics as usual, and I intend to offer them, in this campaign, something unusual in recent American politics: the truth. Neither bureaucracies nor nations function well when their actions are hidden from public view and accountability. From now on, whatever mistakes I make, whatever dangers we face, the people shall know the truth—and the truth shall make them free. After eight years of secrecy and mendacity, here are some truths the people deserve to hear:

We remain essentially a nation under siege. The threat of another terrorist attack upon our homeland has not been reduced by all the new layers of porous bureaucracy that proved their ineptitude in New Orleans; nor by all the needless, mindless curbs on our personal liberties and privacy; nor by expensive new weaponry that is utterly useless in stopping a fanatic willing to blow himself up for his cause. Indeed, our vulnerability to another attack has only been worsened in the years since the attacks of September 11th—worsened by our government convincing more than 1 billion Muslims that we are prejudiced against their faith, dismissive of international law, and indifferent to the deaths of their innocent children; worsened by our failure to understand their culture or to provide a safe haven for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees displaced by a war we started; worsened by our failure to continue our indispensable role in the Middle East peace process.

We have adopted some of the most indefensible tactics of our enemies, including torture and indefinite detention.

We have degraded our military.

We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner—by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.

At home, as health care costs have grown and coverage disappeared, we have done nothing but coddle the insurance, pharmaceutical, and health care industries that feed the problem.
As global warming worsens, we have done nothing but deny the obvious and give regulatory favors to polluters.

As growing economic inequality tarnishes our democracy, we have done nothing but carve out more tax breaks for the rich.

During these last several years, our nation has been bitterly divided and deceived by illicit actions in high places, by violations of federal, constitutional, and international law. I do not favor further widening the nation’s wounds, now or next year, through continuous investigations, indictments, and impeachments. I am confident that history will hold these malefactors accountable for their deeds, and the country will move on.

Instead, I shall seek a renewal of unity among all Americans, an unprecedented unity we will need for years to come in order to face unprecedented danger.

We will be safer from terrorist attack only when we have earned the respect of all other nations instead of their fear, respect for our values and not merely our weapons.

If I am elected president, my vow for this country can be summarized in one short, simple word: change. This November 2008 election—the first since 1952 in which neither the incumbent president’s nor the incumbent vice president’s name will appear on the national ballot, indeed the first since 1976 in which the name of neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush will appear on the national ballot—is destined to bring about the most profound change in the direction of this country since the election of 1932.

To meet the threats we face and restore our place of leadership in the free world, I pledge to do the following:

First, working with a representative Iraqi parliament, I shall set a timetable for an orderly, systematic redeployment and withdrawal of all our troops in Iraq, including the recall of all members of the National Guard to their primary responsibility of guarding our nation and its individual states.

Second, this redeployment shall be only the first step in a comprehensive regional economic and diplomatic stabilization plan for the entire Middle East, building a just and enduring peace between Israel and Palestine, halting the killing and maiming of innocent civilians on both sides, and establishing two independent sovereign states, each behind peacefully negotiated and mutually recognized borders.

Third, I shall as soon as possible transfer all inmates out of the Guantanamo Bay prison and close down that hideous symbol of injustice.

Fourth, I shall fly to New York City to pledge in person to the United Nations, in the September 2009 General Assembly, that the United States is returning to its role as a leader in international law, as a supporter of international tribunals, and as a full-fledged member of the United Nations which will pay its dues in full, on time, and without conditions, renouncing any American empire; that we shall work more intensively with other countries to eliminate global scourges, including AIDS, malaria, and other contagious diseases, massive refugee flows, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and that we will support the early dispatch of United Nations peacekeepers to halt the atrocities in Darfur. I shall make it clear that we do not covet the land of other countries for our military bases or the control of their natural resources for our factories. I shall make it clear that our country is not bound by any policies or pronouncements of my predecessor that violate international law or threaten international peace.

Fifth, I shall personally sign the Kyoto Protocol, and seek its ratification by the United States Senate, in order to stop global warming before it endangers all species on earth, including our own; and I shall call upon the Congress to take action dramatically reducing our nation’s reliance on the carbon fuels that are steadily contributing to the degradation of our environment.

Sixth, I shall demonstrate sufficient confidence in the strength of our values and the wisdom and skill of our diplomats to favor communications, negotiations, and full relations with every country on earth, including Cuba, North Korea, Palestine, and Iran.

Finally, I shall restore the constitutional right of habeas corpus, abolish the unconstitutional tapping of private phones, and once again show the world the traditional American values that distinguish us from those who attacked us on 9/11.

We need not renounce the use of conventional force. We will be ready to repel any clear and present danger that poses a genuine threat to our national security and survival. But it will be as a last resort, never a first; in cooperation with our allies, never alone; out of necessity, never by choice; proportionate, never heedless of civilian lives or international law; as the best alternative considered, never the only. We will always apply the same principles of collective security, prudent caution, and superior weaponry that enabled us to peacefully prevail in the long cold war against the Soviet Union. Above all, we shall wage no more unilateral, ill-planned, ill-considered, and ill-prepared invasions of foreign countries that pose no actual threat to our security. No more wars in which the American Congress is not told in advance and throughout their duration the true cost, consequences, and terms of commitment. No more wars waged by leaders blinded by ideology who have no legal basis to start them and no plan to end them. We shall oppose no peaceful religion or culture, insult or demonize no peace-minded foreign leader, and spare no effort in meeting those obligations of leadership and assistance that our comparative economic strength has thrust upon us. We shall listen, not lecture; learn, not threaten. We will enhance our safety by earning the respect of others and showing respect for them. In short, our foreign policy will rest on the traditional American values of restraint and empathy, not on military might.

In the final analysis, our nation cannot be secure around the world unless our citizens are secure at home—secure not only from external attack, but secure as well from the rising tide of national debt, secure from the financial and physical ravages of uninsured disease, secure from discrimination in our schools and neighborhoods, secure from the bitter unrest generated by a widening gap between our richest and poorest citizens. They are not secure in a country lacking reasonable limitations on the sale of handguns to criminals, the mentally disturbed, and prospective terrorists. And our citizens are not secure when some of their fellow citizens, loyal Islamic Americans, are made to feel they are the targets of hysteria or bigotry.

I believe in an America in which the fruits of productivity and prosperity are shared by all, by workers as well as owners, by those at the bottom as well as those at the top; an America in which the sacrifices required by national security are shared by all, by profiteers in the back offices as well as volunteers on the front lines.

In my administration, I shall restore balance and fairness to the national tax system. I shall level the playing field for organized labor. I shall end the unseemly favors to corporations that allow them to profit without competing, for it is through competition that we innovate, and it is through innovation that we raise the wages of our workers. It shames our nation that profits for corporations have soared even as wages for average Americans have fallen. It shames us still more that so many African American men must struggle to find jobs.

We will make sure that no American citizen, from the youngest child to the oldest retiree, and especially no returning serviceman or military veteran, will be denied fully funded medical care of the highest quality.

To pay for these domestic programs, my administration will make sure that subsidies and tax breaks go only to those who need them most, not those who need them least, and that we fund only those weapons systems we need to meet the threats of today and tomorrow, not those of yesterday.

The purpose of public office is to do good, not harm; to change lives, help lives, and save lives, not destroy them. I look upon the presidency not as an opportunity to rule, but as an opportunity to serve. I intend to serve all the people, regardless of party, race, region, or religion.

Let us all, here assembled in this hall, or watching at home, constitute ourselves, rededicate ourselves, as soldiers in a new army. Not an army of death and destruction, but a new army of voters and volunteers, in a new wave of workers for peace and justice at home and abroad, new missionaries for the moral rebirth of our country. I ask for every citizen’s help, not merely those who live in the red states or those who live in the blue states, but every citizen in every state. Although we may be called fools and dreamers, although we will find the going uphill, in the words of the poet: "Say not the struggle naught availeth." We will change our country’s direction, and hand to the generation that follows a nation that is safer, cleaner, less divided, and less fearful than the nation we will inherit next January.

I’m told that John F. Kennedy was fond of quoting Archimedes, who explained the principle of the lever by declaring: "Give me a place to stand, and I can move the world." My fellow Americans—here I stand. Come join me, and together we will move the world to a new era of a just and lasting peace.

Puff the Magic Commenter

This post is in response to comments made by that master debater, Fred Dooley, author of the hilariously named Real Debate blog. Fred responded first to my post titled "Wrong Again", in which I chastised local former radio host, Jessica McBride, for comparing herself to that tub of malprofundity, Rush Limbaugh, and to man puppet, Ann Coulter. Fred took issue first with my comments that Limbaugh's inelegant spoof of David Ehrenstein's "Obama the Magic Negro" op ed was inherently racist. He asked why I did not condemn Ehrenstein's piece in the same manner as I condemned Limbaugh, reminding me that Ehrenstein is black.

Hmmm. Let me type this slowly for Fred and his friends so they can understand (mind you I type slowly anyway). Ehrenstein's piece was indeed provacative. He spoke of white liberal guilt and its need to replace the "highly sexualized black man" with a benign figure, someone like Scatman Crothers or Will Smith.

But for goodness sake, it was an opinion piece ... and fyi, well written. Make up your own mind, but don't dance around and tell me that Ehrenstein and Limbaugh are somehow related in matters racial.

Limbaugh and his parody ... it had nothing to do with opinion. It had everything to do with satisfying that little itch that can't be scratched publicly, so distract the viewers with a little song and dance. Digby said it best back in April 2007.

He [Limbaugh] knows his audience and what they are thinking. And that little ditty "Barack the Magic Negro" will stick --- not in the minds of the liberals whom Ehrenstein claims see him as the great assuager of liberal guilt, but by racist creeps who just love to snigger and snort over the word "negro." Dittoheads know exactly what Rush is about here no matter what kind of patently absurd nonsense he spews about liberals putting African Americans up on auction blocks. Everybody's in on the joke.

And that's exactly what it was ... a sordid, awful and petty little joke by a petty (in stature, not girth) little man. It did not contribute anything to society. Racists never do.

I'll let another, the Illusory Tenant (who is fast becoming a fan favorite), tackle the McBride issue (which I thought I did well, but you know the old saying about short people, Fred). He lays bare McBride's silliness and abject inability to make a coherent point because she fails to do the leg work.

Regardng my other post, titled "Oh, the Injustice" ... Fred accused me of being silly for searching for a gotcha moment. The moment, in his mind, the juxtaposition of Oshkosh gun shots and Juneteenth violence. They're not the same he roars.

Again, his argument, while welcomed because blogs are for the most part compiled of opinion pieces with invitations to comment, missed the point. Hmmm. Follow the keystrokes again. I was not comparing the degree of violence, I was comparing the coverage. The post had nothing to do with the amount of violence that occurs in the respective counties, it had everything to do with white conservative bloggers spending an incredibly inordinate amount of time on black issues. I understand why ... it plays to the dittoheads among you.

Wow, Limbaugh really was a trailblazer. Even as far back as the 1970s when he once told a black caller: 'Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."

Fred, if the shoe fits ....

Helen Thomas: American Hero

Here is a link to an interview of veteran White House correspondent, Helen Thomas, by Glenn Greenwald, author of the blog Unclaimed Territory. Thomas is one of the few, if not the only reporter, who stands up to this administration. She refuses to ask the easy questions and does not let the administration off the hook when it tries to provide the pat answers. At the end of the interview, she had this to say about her relationship with the administration

I always say to them -- who are you? We pay you. You are working for the American people. It doesn't mean we're antagonistic. It means we care about this country, and care about truth. And I honestly believe we will be better off when we face the reality of what we've done.

To those on the right who say those who question policy are traitors, that those who refuse to accept the lies spread by this administration are in league with the enemy ... shame on you. You are the ones who care only about yourselves and not one wit for your country. But then, isn't that the conservative agenda anyway (paraphrasing JFK) ... "Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what is best for me."