Category: Politics

UK Court Rules Activists May Damage Coal-Fired Power Plants

Greenpeace activist on Kingsnorth Chimney

Yesterday, Sep. 10, 2008 a UK court acquitted six defendants from Greenpeace of all charges for their actions on Oct. 8, 2007, when they scaled a smokestack at the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station and attempted to shut it down. The defendants, accused of doing £30,000 in damage to the smokestack by  painting “Gordon Bin It” on its side, did not deny the damage but relied instead for their defense on the principle of lawful excuse. (For more on “lawful excuse” see here.)

In essence they argued that the plant was doing damage to other property through its greenhouse gas emissions on such a scale as to justify their damaging it.

Scottish Americans Unite!! Craig Ferguson’s brilliant rant

From CBS: On the Sept. 10th edition of The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson, a new American citizen preparing to vote in his first US election asks, “Are we so lost we have to be sold our own democratic right!?”

*/:-D

More About the Politics of Cyber-Bullying.

In my previous entry I described the tactic of whining over perceived offenses as a means of suppressing political dissent — really a form of cyber-bullying.  I’d like to continue along that vein, citing more examples.  This is necessary because until and unless we fully understand how and why this tactic is so effective, we cannot adequately neutralize it.

Terry Michael of The Politico wrote in June that “[a]s Democrats prepare to do battle with John McCain this fall, we need to dispel two comforting but self-defeating myths about recent failed White House campaigns.”  I couldn’t agree more.  What are these myths?  Mr. Michael explains:

The 1980s saw a bigger than usual glut of aggressive young males. Motivated by profits from the black market created by a brainless drug war, urban gangbangers were scaring aging children of the Depression known as Reagan Democrats.

So Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes, aided by minions in the basement of the Republican National Committee, dredged up a resonant metaphor for everything Reagan Democrats loved to hate about crime-coddling liberals: Willie Horton, the murderer sentenced to life in prison, who pillaged his way through Maryland on a weekend prison pass.

Yet that’s not what really happened.

The Massachusetts program, a rehabilitation effort signed into law in 1972, was applied to convicted murderers by the commonwealth’s Supreme Court, and Dukakis, in his first term as Massachusetts governor, vetoed an attempt to overturn the court. After scores of Pulitzer Prize-winning stories by the Lawrence (Mass.) Eagle-Tribune, the law that allowed Horton his pass was overturned in a bill signed by Dukakis himself on April 28, 1988, after the issue was raised in presidential politics at a Democratic debate April 12 in New York by … Al Gore! Yes, the same Nobel laureate Hollywood liberals adore, not some fire-breathing, right-wing nut.

Mr. Michael thinks, apparently, that it was a mistake to ascribe evil motivations to what Atwater and Ailes did, but I respectfully disagree with him on that point; Atwater and Ailes, along with the Republican spinmeisters, had nothing but the basest, filthiest, most despicable motivations for using Horton as a political bludgeon against Democrat Mike Dukakis.  Racism was exploited in order to portray the Massachusetts governor as soft on crime.  Nevertheless, Mr. Michael does catch on to something, as he writes:

The Beltway Democratic geniuses who gave us Kerry were convinced they needed a military hero to carry an anti-war banner against a war-making weekend warrior.

The best and the brightest among the party elders did their best to push Howard Dean off the stage and nominate Lt. Kerry, who reported for duty in Boston with a speech performance that told the nation everything it needed to know: He was for the war in Vietnam. He was against the war in Vietnam. Just as he voted for the war in Iraq but now he was against the war in Iraq.

Or was he? Because, just weeks later, Kerry said he would have voted for authorizing the war, even if he’d known there were no weapons of mass destruction.

Snarky attitude aside, Mr. Michael does make a valid point: Kerry allowed himself to be defined by the opposition; that is, he was afraid to take a definitive stand on vital issues, and so the GOP was able to portray him as someone who is weak and indecisive, someone whose positions change with the political wind.  It didn’t matter that Kerry didn’t actually flip-flop; he allowed the public perception of himself to be portrayed that way.  When the Republicans rose their maniacal voices in fury, he backed down and tried to “clarify” his remarks.  That simply opened him up to further attack.

Let’s go back a little further in examining the politics of bullying.  In 2004 Paul Rogat Loeb wrote on CommonDreams.org:

A former Air Force Colonel I know described the Bush administration’s attitude toward dissent as “shut up and color,” as if we were unruly eight-year-olds. Whatever citizens may think of Bush’s particular policies, what may make him the most dangerous president ever is how much he’s promoted a culture that equates questioning with treason. This threatens the very dialogue that’s at the core of our republic.

Think of Dick Cheney saying a Kerry victory would invite a terrorist attack. Think of the eve of the Iraq war, and the contempt heaped on those generals who dared to suggest that the war might take far more troops and money than the administration was suggesting. Think of the attacks on the reputations and motives of long-time Republicans who’ve recently dared to question, like national security advisor Richard Clarke, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, weapons inspector Scott Ritter, and Bush’s own former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill. Think of the Republican TV ads, the 2002 Georgia Senate race, which paired Democratic Senator Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein-asserting that because Cleland opposed President Bush’s Homeland Security bill, he lacked “the courage to lead.”

In this last case, it didn’t matter that Cleland had lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam, while the Republican who eventually defeated him had never worn a uniform. Nor that Republican strategists nearly defeated South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson in the same election, with similar ads, although Johnson was the only person in Congress whose child was actually serving with the U.S. military-and would see active duty in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It’s hard to talk about such intimidation without sounding partisan or shrill, but we need to make it a central issue, because if it succeeds, it becomes impossible to discuss any other issues [emphasis mine].

Pay close attention to the bold type.  As long as we on the left allow ourselves to be defined and bullied by the opposition and members of our own ideology, we cannot stand against it.  George Lakoff, a professor from the University of Berkley, has spent the past few years trying to explain how far right-wingers frame the debate so that we on the left are forced to accept their terms for discussion.  In a 2003 Berkley interview the author, Bonnie A. Powell, writes, “by dictating the terms of national debate, conservatives have put progressives firmly on the defensive.”  Lakoff himself points out:

Language always comes with what is called “framing.” Every word is defined relative to a conceptual framework. If you have something like “revolt,” that implies a population that is being ruled unfairly, or assumes it is being ruled unfairly, and that they are throwing off their rulers, which would be considered a good thing. That’s a frame.

My 9/11/01

I was working for a bar owner at 44th St. & 9th Ave.  He had the news on both TVs.  And people started streaming in as large buildings were closed all over town.  One guy I knew perished.  Another, made it out of the twin towers alive, and walked uptown.  Another woman was late for work: she got to the ground zero area in time to see the second plane fly into the second tower, turned around, and caught what was probably the last subway uptown out of that area.

Here’s what I remember about that day:

Shortly before 9 a.m. EDT, I went into the hardware store to buy some paper towels for the sister bar.  The store owner, who knew me from similar errands in the past, said, “Did you hear?  A plane just flew into the World Trade Center.”

I gaped at him; said something like, “You’re kidding.”  It didn’t register, at first: I mean, small planes do fly into big buildings on occasion but…

He said, “No, it’s on the radio,” and turned up the volume.

A Party of Whiners.

Reading Randy Cassingham’s blog entry about an irate right-winger who chose to pick a fight with him over the ‘net soon after reading a similarly crybaby comment at the Progressive Blue version of my previous entry, I couldn’t help but recognize a pattern: there is a large segment of American society that goes out of its way to take offense at anything, no matter what.  Even…no…especially when the perceived offense is absolutely true and not necessarily intended to raise hackles, someone, somewhere must make a gymnastic leap in logic.  Why this is so is a matter of speculation, but I like to think my theory is closer to the mark.

Why I Am a Liberal …Part 3

 Note: This is part of an ongoing effort to define what it is we want, what we are fighting for as liberal/Progressive /Democrats. As we take power after the next election I believe we should define who we are and what we stand for. Both so people know what they are voting for, and so that we do not lose our principles to the glamor of power, as the Conservatives have.



Part One, Part Two

Humans are an unbelievably  tiny and unimaginably ignorant specks of consciousness in an incomprehensibly vast and nearly impenetrably mysterious universe.

We would do well to remember that on a daily basis.

But we can’t, really.

Because we have to do the laundry and the dishes and feed the pooties and fuel the engine, the sack of meat, that carries our itsy-bitsy spark around on this slightly larger speck of consciousness we like to call planet earth. To keep the engine running and avoid death (whatever the hell that is, see words six and seven in the opening sentence) we need to harvest fuel. Harvesting fuel used to mean just that, stumbling around looking for things to fuel the engine, the body. To the point where some brave soul decided to be the first one to eat an oyster! Things of course, have changed. Imagine 7 billion people wandering around looking for oysters or portobellos or okra. But I digress. Nowadays, harvesting mostly consists of driving to a building, spending a third of the day conducting activities that someone else deems valuable and then periodically getting handed a piece of paper. That you then take to another building and give to them. In return for which they hand you other pieces of paper. Which you can then take to other buildings and hand that paper to them after you have harvested your food in the aisles of that building. Sometimes you even get change!

In order to have the people in the first building give you that piece of paper though, they have to be convinced that you…..know something. You have to at least act like you know what you are doing, convincingly.  These days, in order to harvest the fuel to power the engine that carries your consciousness around, you have to assert knowledge. (One of the ways to do this is to go to yet another building and listen to other people assert knowledge, if you listen long enough…they give you another piece of paper called a diploma.) It is only by asserting knowledge that you can harvest the fuel needed to survive.

Are You Experienced?

I recently participated in the overly burdened multi-stage process that my place of employment uses for hiring. We were looking for a new manager for one of our Hem-Onc units, we have a relatively democratic atmosphere. Case in point, while doing rounds last night in the middle of total chaos the new fellow introduces himself to me and says so you’re my Leukemia expert and I said,” No that would be you.” He laughed and sad ,”Well X informs me you’re going to keep me from making mistakes while I am new.”  Because, well, he is right. I will. I supervise the RNs but I also have to shepherd the new docs who know far more than me. I have plenty of experience doing this: dealing with people far smarter than I. If somebody asked me to put a one liner on my resume that would be it: I can recognize when somebody is smarter than me and in my workplace I am surrounded by them. It happens in a research institution.

We had five candidates and the one I favored is very young, inexperienced and male, still a big minority in nursing. My belief was that if we did not hire him another institution was going to snap him up and apparently for once in my career I was on the same side as the big dogs who decided to he was the right choice.

His big negative was a lack of experience. And we are already talking about experience in this charmingly obtuse political season. Who has it. Who doesn’t. What kind of “experience” do we want?

Think about how many big steps in life we take with no experience. The first time you get married, have your first child, drive a car, go on a date. Think about all the incredibly bad advice you got from those so called “experienced” people. Sure I am guilty of playing the middled aged “experience” card myself when I doll out my advice and I am just as often wrong.

The only relevant experience for being president is being president. Of course it ends up that I am defending the choice of Palin by saying this and actually her lack of experience doesn’t bother me: it is the crazy packaged as middle America that irks me. That is the genius of American cultural hegemony. It is so broad and vague that almost anybody can be made to seem just like you and I when they aren’t.

We are taking a chance on a new manager at my workplace. I don’t know what change he is bringing but I just coherent enough to know change is coming and I can either rely on my old patterns of thinking and risk becoming professionally irrelevant or learn to surf in the new ocean. People often say that change for the sake of change isn’t necessarily better but nor is it necessarily worse.

What good is experience if it is just used to enforce an existing and decaying order? What good are leadership skills it they are merely a repetition of worn out tunes? Most leadership skills are acquired when one becomes one anyway. Of course I have had plenty of leadership training at my work place but it happened long after I took my position and after I basically asked for it.

Experience in politics, at work, and in life is only a useful tool if one actually decides to learn from it, to admit mistakes and formulate new approaches.

Racist Republicans

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, (R)(acist) Georgia, is a hypocritical, ignorant racist asshole. How’s that for name calling Lynn? (Isn’t Lynn a GIRL’S name, btw?)  It makes me feel dirty to call you those names, does it make you feel dirty to use patently blatant racism, Lynn? Somehow I doubt it.

Photobucket

“Honestly, I’ve never paid that much attention to Michelle Obama,” Westmoreland said. “Just what little I’ve seen of her and Senator Barack] Obama, is that they’re a member of an elitist class…that thinks that they’re uppity.”

The 58-year-old, Atlanta-born congressman declined to elaborate further, though he did repeat one part of his comment when asked to clarify.

“Uppity, you said?” he was asked.

“Yeah, uppity,” Westmoreland replied.

The audio.

This is the same dumb, racist, hypocritical, sanctimonious, Republican who….well I will let [Wikipedia tell you…

As a U.S. congressman, Westmoreland cosponsored a bill to place the Ten Commandments in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Westmoreland also sponsored a bill that the Ten Commandments could be displayed in courthouses in a historical setting. In May 2006, political humorist Stephen Colbert interviewed Westmoreland for The Colbert Report show segment Better Know a District. The congressman was only able to name three of the Ten Commandments he sought to legally put in public display.

Give me your White, scared and wealthy

Tonight the Republicans nominated their candidate for President.  We heard them all speak.  They pulled no punches, that is for sure.  Yet it isn’t what they said that intrigued me, it’s what they didn’t say!

The Republican Convention in one second.

One could summarize the whole three days with these lines:

  1. John McCain served in Vietnam, got shot down, and became a POW
  2. Terrorists could still strike us, watch out!
  3. The Democrats will raise all your taxes, and you will lose your livelihoods.
  4. Energy independence will come at the tip of a an oil rig drill.
  5. Cutting spending on social programs equals freedom.
  6. Liberals love to kill babies.
  7. Oh…and John McCain was a POW.

Book Review: Piety and Politics

Book Review

Piety and Politics: The Right-Wing Assault on Religious Freedom, by Rev. Barry W. Lynn, New York: Harmony, 2007 , 270 pp. hardcover

Barry Lynn is angry. Furious, in fact. And the object of the man’s fury is the politicized, evangelical religious fanaticism that has seized control of America’s moral discourse. As a minister in the United Church of Christ and executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Lynn is an unlikely figure to be standing in the front ranks against the tide of militant Christianity that threatens the United States. Unlikely or not, Lynn seems to be hitting the right keys and pressing the right buttons: he has incurred the wrath of right-wingers like Jerry Falwell and Patrick Buchanan, and Lynn has the distinction of having once been described by Pat Robertson as “lower than a child molester.” If one can be known by one’s enemies, then I like the guy already.

Lynn does not waste any time, wading right into the middle of the battle almost from the first page. He takes an almost boyish delight in going toe-to-toe with the Religious Right on some of their favorite obsessions: public education, religious symbols, the church in politics, censorship and sexual politics. Lynn believes that the Religious Right has it all wrong, that their Bible-based worldview is an unacceptable basis for approaching the question of how America should be run. He demands that American politicians stop their pandering attempts to use the Bible to justify their actions and instead put their faith in the document that they are all sworn to defend: the U.S. Constitution. But Lynn is no wide-eyed naïf; he knows the history of his country, and he understand how tenuous the separation of Church and State is, especially now.

“When, in the history of the world, has a union of church and state ever been a good thing?” With these words, Lynn attempts to reason with the fundamentalists, posing a question that they are unwilling to consider and ill equipped to answer. Unlike the Religious Right, Lynn knows the true history of his country, and is able to describe religion’s long struggle to usurp America’s secular system of government. Those Americans who believe that the current spasm of fundamentalism is something new, or even exceptional, will perhaps take comfort from Lynn’s insightful analysis of the history of a fanaticism that has always been embedded in the fabric of American culture,  and his explanation  of how America has (so far) survived the ill effects of this fanaticism.

Quite simply, there was never a time when some form of struggle between secularism and fanaticism was not taking place. We must remember that the first colonists in New England came to the New World seeking religious freedom because their fanatical brand of religiosity was too radical for the Europe of the time. Mind you, we are talking about a Europe riddled with religious wars, a Europe where witches were burned along side heretics who dared to claim the Earth was not the center of the universe. And yet America’s “Puritan forefathers” were too radical to be tolerated in that environment. If we keep this thought at hand, we have no problem understanding the eruptions of bizarre religiosity that litter American history with almost monotonous regularity.

In the 19th century, “tensions over religion in public school rode so high … that in 1844 a riot erupted after rumors circulated that schools were going to remove Protestant religious exercises.” An organization called the National Reform Association (the Moral Majority of its time) engaged in a protracted campaign to have an amendment to the Constitution declare that America was “a Christian nation,” and propagandized at the local level to write into law the idea that commerce and revelry should be curtailed on “The Lord’s Day” (an idea that continues to enjoy wide support throughout many areas of the U. S. to this day).

Very little changed in the 20th century, except that the Religious Right became more sophisticated and clever as they struggled to infect the Constitution with the virus of religiosity. Lynn reminds us that the seemingly immutable slogans “one nation, under God” and “In God We Trust” are relatively recent innovations, driven by the decision in the 1950s to recruit God “in the battle against juvenile delinquency and communism.” The propaganda campaign to portray secularism as “some amoral, libertine perspective on life” also gained enormous traction in the second half of the 20th century, and not just among those who were obvious fringe cases. One cannot help but think of Joe Lieberman during the 2000 presidential campaign, making the truly alarming claim in his stump speech that “faith is necessary for good behavior.”

Lynn oscillates between sadness and ill-concealed amusement when he discusses the fact that, in the United States, “secularism is mandated by the government, but religion still pervades the culture with a strong and vibrant voice. In much of Europe, there is no government mandate of secularism, but the cultures are effectively secular.” This is no exaggeration: I have driven through much of Europe, from the Spanish border to Bavaria, and it is only in Italy that one sees even a faint echo of the old religious madness. For the most part, the old churches of Europe, from the grand cathedrals to the most humble village church, are now nothing more than museums. As Lynn observes, the churches of Europe “lack for only one thing: congregants.”

Lynn seems to recognize, at least implicitly, that America’s tribal and atavistic religiosity will never wither away the way it did in Europe. There is something unique about the tightening grip that religion has on America, something toxic and not a little bit mad. Yet even within this historical context, Lynn is forced to admit, “I’ve never seen the situation this bad.” The disease of religious fanaticism has mutated, growing ever more dangerous as it turns the tools of modernity against modernity itself in a struggle to undermine America’s secular foundations.

Lynn has no illusions about the nature and ambitions of America’s new crop of fundamentalists. “I’ve studies the tactics of these groups for more than thirty years. I know what they want. They want to run your life, mine, and everyone else’s as much as they possibly can.”  While these Christian zealots always portray themselves as oppressed and marginalized, “members of the clergy walk the halls of Congress … pressing their views and often being warmly received. You see them in the senators’ dining room. I’ve been there myself.” These influential members of the clergy – effectively, lobbyists for the Christian fundamentalist worldview – have admirable persistence and remarkable message discipline. Everything wrong in this country, without exception, can be laid at the feet of the godless and dubious plot by secularists and their lackeys to promulgate the separation of Church and State. Whether it is rampant immorality, plunging SAT scores, the epidemic of unwed motherhood, gay marriage, or the scourge of drugs in our urban ghettoes, all of it is the fault of the separation of Church and State. If only America could go back to those halcyon days when religion was the basis of every aspect of American life, all would be well.

This is a seductive message, perhaps because of its simplicity, perhaps because it appeals to the seemingly universal yearning for a Golden Age that never was. America’s Golden Age was brought to ruin when “that mean old Supreme Court, prodded by an atheist, intervened and threw prayer out” of the public schools. Within this context, an “activist judge” is “simply a judge who writes an opinion the Religious Right doesn’t like.”  As a proudly “God-centered” Bush administration loaded the American judicial system with judges who held the “correct views,” the leaders of the fundamentalist movement, never noted for their timidity,  shook off the last of their inhibitions and began to speak more openly about their grand vision of what a God-besotted American future would look like. Lynn cleverly allows fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to reveal themselves – and betray themselves – with their own words. They really do make it almost too easy for Lynn to mock them and then dispose of them.

We are dealing, after all, with men who genuinely believe that “God punishes communities that displease him with hurricanes, floods, and meteors; who assert that demons control major U.S. cities and who think Harry Potter books lure children into practicing witchcraft.” As he offers us up a seemingly endless smorgasbord of choice tidbits from the mouthpieces of the Religious Right, Lynn gives us a feel for the deeply strange beliefs of America’s fundamentalists, an archaic, tribal view of the world that would seem more at home being articulated by some shaman crouched around a Neolithic campfire, or by a priest standing atop an Aztec sacrificial pyramid. The fact that this deeply uncivilized way of understanding the world finds millions of adherents in the world’s sole remaining superpower should do more than give us pause – it should scare the hell out of us.

What Lynn gives us along with his analysis of the thinking of the Religious Right is a deep and disturbing sense of how radically opposed to America’s freedoms these people really are. They want to control what all citizens do, and they are perfectly willing to enlist the government, the courts and law-enforcement if that is what it takes to rid themselves of the burden of a freedom that they are unwilling to embrace. Lynn, to his credit, continues to believe that the American people are too smart to stand for this, and that most Americans want a government that is free of religious dicta. Those of us who share his deep concern for the influence of the Religious Right in American life can only hope that he is right. I for one do not share his optimism.

Lynn tells us that “a get-along philosophy … will increasingly prove disastrous” and that we will end up “whistling past the graveyard of our Bill of Rights and religious freedom if we take that road.” Yet, having said this, Lynn continues to preach restraint and an insistence on “sweet reason” as the best approach for dealing with the predations of the fundamentalists. Relating an anecdote about a televised confrontation with a member of the Religious Right, Lynn recalls that the host told him off-camera, “your side isn’t as passionate as his side.” Therein lies an enormous problem, and therein lies the reason that in America today, the Religious Right marches on, rampant though not (yet) completely triumphant. The forces of common sense and reason continue to lose ground to the forces of religious bigotry and intolerance. And in a country where every candidate for public office feels compelled to outdo the others with ever more over-the-top proclamations of personal religiosity, the problem is not going to go away when a new tenant moves into the White House.

While Lynn remains a strong proponent of a rational, even-handed approach, one occasionally gets an exciting sense of the rhetorical power that Lynn must deploy when he is in the pulpit and the spirit moves him. I found myself wishing for more of the sort of fire that Lynn displays when he shouts – and though they are only words on the page, I had no problem imaging him shouting them — “I am weary of their gay bashing. I am weary of their crude attacks on nonbelievers. I am weary of their constant effort to sneak their bogus “creation science” into our schools. I am weary of their meddling in the most intimate areas of our private lives. I am weary of their attempts to politicize houses of worship. I am weary of all that they do.”

  Preach on, Reverend.

Native Americans in Gustav’s Path

I’ve been doing a series on the Chtitmacha and Houma tribes in southern Louisiana and how they have been affected by Gustav.  These folks were ignored during Katrina and Rita, and bore the brunt of Gustav.  A fellow Kos subscriber suggested I cross-post this here.

Below is the latest, for whatever it’s worth.

=============

Maybe it’s me, but it seems that not only has the MSM floated along in its coverage of what’s going on in LA for New Orleans but the peoples that were ignored last time around are even  more out of sight this time.

Of course, now everyone is Sarah Palin 24/7 and doesn’t have time for other issues…

See my previous diaries here and here. As an admission, I was more concerned about the Chitimacha originally, as I had worked with them back in 2006 after Katrina/Rita.  Obviously, the Houma are in the same boat, so I apologize for giving them and the other tribes short shrift in my initial diaries.

First off, some news, before I rant.

Lafourche parish opened at 4 PM on 9/2…no news on damages or flooding as of yet.

Terrbonne parish is closed until Friday, so we may not get reports until then.

Trance Politics: Are We Completely Distracted Yet?

cross-posted from The Dream Antilles

Maybe the Rethuglicans think that no one in America will think about any serious issues until after November if they continue to provide tons of distraction, both intentional and unintentional. If that’s their strategy, it’s working unbelievably well in both Left and Right Blogistan and the traditional media.

Two quick, recent, simple examples of the phenomenon:

Example 1. There has been lots of blogging about Sarah Palin’s not being the mother of her youngest child, the claim being that her daughter was actually the mother.  And now, today, the refutation of the story.  Not that photo of an obviously pregnant Palin.  Oh no.  Nothing like that.  Instead, a story that her daughter is pregnant now, that she’ll marry the baby’s father, and so on.  This is worth at least a week more of distraction, during which we’re not supposed to look at Iraq, the economy, energy or health care.  Instead, we’re supposed to debate and/or scream at each other about whether or not Sarah Palin’s daughter did or did not have access to contraception and compare Sarah Palin to Hillary Britney’s mother.

Example 2.  Hurricane Gustav takes aim at New Orleans.  Embarrassed about Katrina, the Rethuglican’s decide it would be unbecoming to have arch villains Bush and Cheney in public a coronation celebration while a natural disaster strikes America.  They say that on this occasion they should act like Americans rather than Rethuglicans.  Great. So we turn attention to how that will change their planned convention, and how they’re getting briefed in Mississippi and Tejas.  But why is it, if it’s not ok to celebrate a coronation when there’s a natural disaster, that it is ok to celebrate it while there’s a continuing man-made disaster in Iraq, which has left thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead and tens of thousands more maimed or seriously wounded.  It’s ok to celebrate when thousands of nation’s youth are dying, but the mere chance of deaths or injuries or loss of property from a storm makes the celebration inappropriate.  Does this make any sense?  Only if you care about providing innocuous material to discuss instead of real issues.

Enough, I say.  Enough.  

Now I’m going to an American barbecue.  I’m going to drink lots of globalized beer.  I’m going to celebrate what labor in America has brought the nation.  Things like the 8 hour day and the weekend. I’m going especially to celebrate the triumphs of the UFW and Cesar Chavez.  And the IWW. I’m going to think about Big Bill Haywood and Woody Guthrie.  I’m gonna hum labor songs.  I’m taking a break.

While I’m gone, I hope folks will start to figure out how to break the trance.

Load more