Anything to Divert Attention Away from Grandpa McCain

"What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out if they are pro-America or anti-America."
- Michelle Bachmann, self-professed "fool for Christ" and US Congresswoman, (R)-MN.

Yeah -- let's do that! Let's call off the Presidential campaign and get the news media to look into every member of Congress for any anti-American views and/or activities, and expose them for the traiters and terrorist-lovers that they are. In fact, let's start with the anti-American Michelle Bachmann, who said that God told her to run for office.

Then we can move on to all the Congressmen who supported all of Bush's various attacks on the Constitution. Once we've identified them all, then what? I await your instructions, oh wise one, oh oracle of Buttfuck, MN! Once we have you and your brethren rounded up and caged, then what? What fate is most fitting for anti-American harpies such as you?

Not My "Commander in Chief"

From Glenn Greenwald:

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").

This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war. And -- though I don't think there's a strong complaint to be made that the media generally has been unfair to Barack Obama -- this "Commander-in-Chief" fetish is also one of the principal causes of the ongoing media reverence for John S. McCain.

Amen to that. Don't know that I agree with that final point, but this "Commander in Chief" nonsense is patently unAmerican.

Must Destroy Republicans, part 278

Yet another report about stuff we already knew: the Bush White House unethically, immorally, and illegally misused government resources (and taxpayer money) for campaign purposes. Is there nothing they won't torture?

Joe the Plumber

Remember Joe the plumber from last night's debate? ABC News did a little investigating, and found a couple of interesting things about him. Like:

Ironically, the plumber currently has an income level that would make him eligible for Obama's proposed tax cut rather than the tax increase.

"Ironically"? What's ironic about it? Do people expect plumbers to make more than 250k/year? Or is it that people expect John McCain not to lie?

Also:

"There is a judgment lien against him for nonpayment of income tax," Barb Losie, deputy clerk of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, told ABCNews.com. "The state files hundreds of liens a day. It means he owes that money."

Losie said Wurzelbacher owes $1,182 from January 2007, but no action has been taken against him outside of filing the lien.

In other words, even if Joe DID make over 250k/year, it doesn't necessarily mean he'd pay his taxes!

You don't suppose Joe the plumber is related to this other Wurzelbacher, who just happens to be the son-in-law of Charles Keating, do you?

A son-in-law of the former head of Lincoln Savings, Charles H. Keating Jr., must surrender next year to begin a 40-month prison sentence.

United States District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer imposed the sentence last week on the son-in-law, Robert M. Wurzelbacher Jr., who had pleaded guilty to three counts of misapplying $14 million from Lincoln, an Irvine, Calif., savings association.

Turns out the two Wurzelbachers are not actually related, I hear. What an odd coincidence.

By the way -- what is it with Republicans and 'plumbers', anyway?

Norm Coleman vs. Transparency

"And that’s all anybody is entitled to know."
- Norm Coleman

If there were a 'liberal' media...

...wouldn't you think PBS would be part of it? Public Broadcasting System?

SH: Yeah, well the production of this documentary began early in 2007 and there were discussions with PBS from the beginning - it's being made, it's being funded, and we'll need an air slot for it some time in the fall of 2008, it'll be finished in May of 2008. There was a general agreement; all was fine. Then when the documentary was finalized and submitted to PBS, they held on to it and were silent for a while, and then they came back and they told Shirley Jones, the producer, well, we're sorry, but due to scheduling problems and other considerations, we cannot find time for this before January 21, 2009.

GG: That was the date that they gave for when the first date that it could possibly be broadcast, and what's the significance of that date?

SH: And that is the first day of the new administration. So they basically said broadcast of this feature hinges on the regime change in Washington DC. Rather an extraordinary admission, I think.

So we can't see the Frontline documentary about Bush's torture while Bush is still in office? Is there really anything about it that we don't already know?

Read the whole interview with Glenn Greenwald, or listen to it, here.

And there's more about "Torturing Democracy" here.

My favorite take-away from the final debate:

"If you had participated in the town hall debates that I suggested, then I wouldn't have to call you a terrorist and incite people to violence against you!"
and
"Congressman Lewis hurt my feelings, and Obama hasn't apologized to me! Wah! WAaaaahh!!"

John McCain is a repulsive man-child.

I Love You, Matt Taibbi!

It's a perfectly innocent man-crush. You totally kick ass, dude!

This is from NYMAG.com:

---

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi and National Review's Byron York argue over the headwinds facing McCain, what Phil Gramm had to do with the financial crisis, and the importance of credit default swaps.

M.T.: So how are you feeling about McCain's chances today?

B.Y.: I've just finished an article for National Review — the actual magazine — about the headwinds McCain faces. I was going to look at three, and then I started to list them. I stopped at ten. New Gallup numbers out today show that George W. Bush's job approval rating remains at 25 percent, while his disapproval rating has ticked up to 71 percent. How hard is it to succeed a two-term president of your own party who is at 25-71? We don't know because it's never been done.

M.T.: Yeah, that's a damned shame, too. I feel really badly for the guy. I suppose you think the media coverage is also a headwind?

B.Y.: Actually, I did not list media coverage among the headwinds. I listed the succeed-a-two-term-president problem, the right-track/wrong-track problem, the Republican-Democrat-enthusiasm gap problem, the Republican-Democrat-I.D.-gap problem, the financial meltdown, Iraq, Republican gloom on Capitol Hill, Obama's fund-raising advantage, and McCain's historical problems with the GOP base.

M.T.: But all of those "headwinds," or almost all of them, are the direct result of McCain having supported policies that are now unpopular. There is absolute justice in his facing a "headwind" from the financial meltdown, from the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and so on. How is that a "headwind"? That's just self-created unpopularity.

I mean, his onetime campaign co-chair and top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, basically created the credit-default-swap market back in 2000. Why shouldn't he get hammered on the financial crisis?

B.Y.: Did I suggest that headwinds are unfair? But on the financial meltdown in particular, if you're suggesting that that is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

M.T.: You don't think the unregulated CDS market was a major factor in the current crisis? Were you watching when AIG almost went under? Were you watching the Lehman collapse?

B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats' desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans' desire to achieve an "ownership society," in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you're on pretty shaky ground.

M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you're not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That's like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it's all speculation by Wall Street traders. It's a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.

B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite "repeated warnings about credit risk," Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie's new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.

M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don't understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I'm interested to hear.

Because what we're talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?

B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?

M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I'm saying that you're talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren't going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They're going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I'm still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I'm guessing you've never even heard of them.

I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn't pay off their mortgages?

B.Y.: When you refer to "Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act," are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?

M.T.: In point of fact I'm talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.

Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.

B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn't. We've gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that's enough. Thanks.

M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.

B.Y.: It's National Review.

No, I Will NOT Thank the Troops For That!

I realize there are many disturbing things about Sarah Palin, and that this one is not the most disturbing, but I've heard it enough times now that I must remark on it -- especially since I haven't heard or read anybody else saying it. She's got this habit of saying to hecklers things like, “I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest.”

This kind of nonsense betrays an egregious misunderstanding of what the United States of America is about. You'd think that members of the party who like to tout themselves as the most patriotic bunch since the Third Reich would know a thing or two about the principles that informed the foundation of our government.

What was truly radical about the Declaration of Independence (and the US Constitution that was informed by it) was the concept that people have certain rights by the sole virtue of being alive. We're talking about Human Rights -- rights that we believe, as civilized people, every single human has, whether those rights are respected and acknowledged by other governments or not. That was a mind-blowing notion at the time. Today, over 230 years later, it should be a no-brainer.

One such human right is the right to free speech. It is not a right granted by the 1st Amendment, but rather protected by it. "Shall not be abridged" does NOT mean that we should be grateful to the government for allowing us to speak -- it means that we must change or replace our government if it attempts to deprive us of that right.

A government can only limit your right to free speech -- it cannot grant it. You possess that right because you simply are, not because of what or who you are, or where you were born, or what piece of land you happen to be standing upon. This is something every single citizen should know. If you don't know the difference between a human and a civil right, or don't appreciate the radical vision of people like Jefferson, Adams, Paine, and the rest of them who built the artificial construct we call our country, then you lack the capacity to comprehend what it really means to be a patriotic American.

So, no -- I will not thank the troops for my right to free speech. There are many reasons to be thankful to our men and women in uniform, but thanking them for a right that no person or entity can grant is not one of them.

On hearing such a remark, the response of a true patriot should be, "FUCK YOU!"

Outrageous Norm Coleman stunt (involving Paul Wellstone)

Why I Don't (usually) Watch Olbermann or Maddow

I was repeating the mistake of watching some Olbermann and Maddow tonight (or at least it was on in the background whilst I multitasked), and something David Frum said made me realize why I don't like watching these shows. Frum, who is rarely right about ANYthing, said something to Maddow to the effect that what her show does is similar to what Republicans do when they smear Obama. Maddow (just as most Democrats I know would be) was taken aback by the claim. She demanded that he clarify. She denied that her show is anything like that. Blah blah blah.

Later (I don't necessarily see these things in order) on Olbermann, Keith and Democratic guest were discussing the freefalling McCain campaign, in particular the conclusion of an Alaskan legislative probe that Palin violated state ethics laws while Palin herself was telling the press she was vindicated by the report, claiming it concluded the opposite of what it actually did. Both Olbermann and his guest seemed delighted by this because it's got to be good for the Obama campaign.

That's when it hit me that Frum was right...for once.

If these shows weren't part of the partisan death-spiral, these guys wouldn't be laughing and taking pleasure in this shit. If they cared about something more than winning (or at least beating their opponent, which isn't necessarily the same thing), they would be outraged by the presumption of Palin to think that she can redefine reality with so-called reporters present. If they valued something more meaningful than being aligned with the winning team, they would be demanding to know why reporters didn't correct Palin and say, "actually, Governor, that's not what the report says."

A citizen, in any sense of the word, should expect some accountability from both the political candidates who spread lies through the media and the reporters who act as their grateful enablers.

A journalist who wishes to be worthy of the application of the term 'journalist' should refute any lie, knowingly told or not. If there is to be any accountability for lying politicians, reporters are the ones who must deliver it. They're the last line of defense against fanaticism and the erosion of civilized discourse.

But I digress. My original point was that Olbermann's and Maddow's shows are not news programs any more than O'Reilly's and Hannity's are. They're commentary...partisan commentary. Partisanship is poison because it breeds devotion to a team (or a 'brand') rather than loyalty to an ideal or principle. More partisanship for one side cannot repair an overabundance of it for the other.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis