What We've Learned

Nine days have passed, and the willful blindness hasn't even slowed down yet. Besides the total absence of even the glimmer of personal responsibility that Senator McCain and I have evinced, we learn from all this that the right lives in a perpetual state of victimhood.

We learn that the right doesn't even recognize the irony of its claim of being unfairly blamed for the violence of others, when it has spent the last several years doing exactly that to Muslims — particularly American Muslims. We also learn that the right can simultaneously insist no political party or inclination can be blamed for Tucson — while it itself blames the Democratic party and the left, for Tucson.

We learn that the Right does not understand that if you — if we— foment a political environment in which politics are to be settled by violence, or the threat of violence, or in a rhetorical tide of violent imagery, it no longer matters what those politics specifically are, or if the hearer even understands your politics or agrees with your politics — he may hear only the permission to be violent.

And ultimately we learn — especially from Mrs. Palin's foolishness — this template of what the right would do in an actual open-and-shut slam dunk case in which a partisan of the right attempted to kill one of the left. The right would blame that victim blame him or her for not having brought enough security. Or for not having brought a gun.

— Keith Olbermann, Special Comment, January 17, 2011.

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

Loose Nukes

"We have to recognize that terrorists networks have relationships with terrorist states that have weapons of mass destruction, and that they inevitably are going to get their hands on them and they would not hesitate one minute to use them." — Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.

So I've been kind of hoping for the last eight years that somebody would do something about the loose nuke problem. I'm glad it's finally reached the top of the todo list.

At the unprecedented 47-nation nuclear security summit held earlier this week in Washington D.C., world leaders pledged to secure all vulnerable nuclear material within four years. Russia and the US also signed an agreement to dispose of 68 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. Incidentally, Russian President Medvedev made some sly comments about how nice it was to work with a US president who "thinks when he speaks."

Sam Nunn, a former senator and former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was quick to defend President Obama’s weapons reduction strategy:

"What is the mission that you can’t accomplish with 1,500 warheads?" Nunn asked with a derisive laugh in an exclusive interview with The Daily Beast. "There was a recent report in Scientific American that 100 warheads used by India and Pakistan against each other would kill 20 million people immediately, and would cause so much blockage of the sun with the debris in the atmosphere that over a period of several years, there would be as many as a billion people starving to death."

Of course. But wait. Why would anybody have to defend this policy? I mean, who would be against a revived commitment to nonproliferation? Well, round-up the usual bunch of hyperventilating idiots: Fox News, Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin.

Daily Kos has already tackled the list of nuke policy myths you're going to hear, and The Federation of American Scientists has written a careful report on the Nuclear Posture Review. Unsurprisingly, it's a bit more complicated than Sarah Palin's dimwitted playground metaphor, yet not impossible for the average American to understand.

Some facts: the new treaty does not limit US missile defense systems, the US will still consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstance, and President Obama does indeed have support of top military brass.

Finally, reducing our arsenal does not make us more vulnerable.

However, if you're one of the frivolous few who LOVE nuclear warfare, then relax. Nuclear warheads will be around for a long, long time, and who knows? One day McCain's dream may come true and we'll bomb Iran.

(atomicarchive.com)

The Doomsday Clock is still ticking.

It Takes Time

A year ago it felt like a new world was upon us. Barack Obama won that anxiety inducing election, and we all dodged the McCain/Palin bullet.

I'll repeat what I wrote that night: this historic win is not the answer to everything.

Unsurprisingly, in November 2009, we do not live in a utopia, and I never expected we would. The economy is recovering, but it still sucks. We're not out of Afghanistan, but I was grievously aware that Obama thought that war was "the good war."

President Obama did put a stop to the CIA torture program, but has not held anybody accountable for the many crimes committed. He has not closed the Guantanamo Bay prison yet, nor held trials for all prisoners, and that issue disappoints me greatly. I wanted President Obama to take a firm stand and swift action, but the opposition was fierce.

In the last year, the opposition to change has actually been more farcical than fierce. I don't want to recap the whole teabagger thing because you already know about that.

I'm surprised Congress has made any progress at all on a health-care reform bill. President Clinton couldn't get one passed in eight years, and we want to fault Obama for not being snappy enough?

I think we will get a health-care reform bill and I think we will close Guantanamo Bay, but these things take time. Bush had eight years to fuck things up...

Bush. What did the first year of his incompetency get us? A terrorist attack and an unwinnable war. Maybe I'm hitting below the belt here... no I'm not. It's about time that Democrats remind Americans that Obama has kept us safe.

And he has also been more presidential than Bush. And I believe Obama alone has improved our standing in the eyes of the world.

I never had great expectations, but I had and still have moderate expectations. I still believe Obama mostly has the right ideals for this country. I'm just waiting to see a little more action...

And if you still don't like him, 2012 is right around the corner, and the Republicans, no doubt, will have another moron bullet ready for us.

Running on Empty

"Running on - running on empty
Running on - running blind
Running on - running into the sun
But I'm running behind" — Jackson Browne

What brilliant politician would use this song in his political campaign? Who would remind the country that "hey, I'm losing, don't know where I'm going, and my tank is empty"? I'll give you a hint. He's not president. He's John McCain. But not only was it an unwise song choice, it was used without permission from the artist! Now the Republican National Committee is apologizing to Jackson Browne as part of a legal settlement.

Of course, I can't help but remember way back when Ronald Reagan misappropriated Born in The USA...

Okay, that was just a lame segue into the wingnut "birther" conspiracy. Despite overwhelming evidence that President Obama was born in the USA, these crazies keep prattling on.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii which is a US state. This is his birth certificate. It's authentic. Furthermore, Obama was 47 years old when he was elected, and he has lived more than 14 years in the United States. He meets the qualifications for office laid out in Article Two of the United States Constitution. What the fuck do these idiot birthers want?

If you don't like the president (probably because he's black), then can you at least come up with a better conspiracy theory? Not one that's easily disproved by public records!

If we can't agree on basic facts, I fear we're running towards a new dark ages where ignorance rules.

Walk of Shame

President Bush has 46 days left in the White House, and he's desperately trying to recast his legacy. I've watched parts of his recent exit interview, and although nearly everything he says boils my blood, I haven't commented because at this point, writing long essays on his failures is like kicking a corpse. Luckily, Jon Stewart is up to the task (if video doesn't show, click here):

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

End Times Countdown - Bush Exit Interviews

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

However, now that Jon Stewart has fired me up, I think I am going to kick the corpse just a little bit... Bush made this one particularly wistful remark that I can't let pass: "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." What?

Let me just address the president personally (because I'm certain he reads this blog)...

Sorry Mr. President, but I've been paying attention, and I remember that major Senate committee report last June which concluded that you and your aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda. In other words, you lied to us about the intelligence, and if the information had been different, you still would have lied because you were determined to go to war. Maybe you should read the report. Maybe you'll put a copy in your library. Whatever you do, you can't successfully rewrite history because too many people are watching you.

However, now it's time to keep an eye on little brother Jeb Bush because he's prattling on about setting up a "shadow government" which sounds vaguely treasonous. Between the Bushies and McCain, they've certainly done some damage to the Republican party.

The good news though? That McCain-Palin t-shirt you wanted to buy your grandpa for Christmas is now 75% off! Image via erin m on flickr:

Misplaced October Surprise?

Remember back in August, right before the Democratic National Convention, when there was that little five day South Ossetian War fought between Georgia on one side, and Russia, and the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the other? Remember when McCain spoke of his conversation with Georgian president Saakashvili? "And I told him that I know I speak for every American when I say to him, 'Today we are all Georgians.'"

I thought McCain sounded totally cocky. I'm not a Georgian. I never have been and I never will be. I'm an American. Between McCain's saber rattling and pretending to be president, what was really going on?

Last week the New York Times reported on the observations of international monitors working under the mandate of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) in South Ossetia when the conflict started:

Newly available accounts by independent military observers of the beginning of the war between Georgia and Russia this summer call into question the longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression.

Instead, the accounts suggest that Georgia’s inexperienced military attacked the isolated separatist capital of Tskhinvali on Aug. 7 with indiscriminate artillery and rocket fire, exposing civilians, Russian peacekeepers and unarmed monitors to harm.

As the conflict was developing, I noticed how the media framed the entire thing in terms of the U.S. presidential election and portrayed McCain as the tough guy who would put Russia in its place even if that meant using Georgia as an unwilling proxy in a long, bloody guerrilla war... as if the world needs another war.

But McCain's posturing during election season was no accident. Tom Hayden on TPMCafe asks if the Georgian war was a neocon conspiracy and early October Surprise:

The new evidence increases the likelihood that the August 7-8 clash between Georgia and Russia was an "October Surprise" that would highlight John McCain's greater foreign policy experience at the height of the presidential election.

The Georgia fighting occurred immediately before the Democratic convention in Denver. McCain, the leading public advocate for Georgia, immediately declared "we are all Georgians now" and promised "to blast Russia." Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, at first called for greater diplomacy, but quickly fell in line with a bipartisan consensus of national security advisers and the mainstream media. Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, openly applauded the White House for its rapid response, including support for NATO's inclusion of Georgia and the Ukraine and a one billion dollar emergency appropriation.

The relationship between McCain and his top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, definitely adds credibility to Hayden's claims.

Although Russia has withdrawn all troops, and the U.S. State Department has admitted that the Georgian attack was a mistake, we shouldn't forget about this incident. Indeed I think we need to learn more about it. Hillary Clinton has introduced S.3567 "to establish a Commission on the conflict between Russia and Georgia, and for other purposes."

I hope that president-elect Obama will favor diplomacy in these situations, and I hope that he will rethink the U.S. relationship with Georgia, because I'm afraid this misplaced October surprise will come back to haunt us.

Above Ground

Yesterday morning, as millions were going to the polls, Bill Ayers emerged from his home to give a short interview for the Washington Post. Ayers had this to say:

"Pal around together? What does that mean? Share a milkshake with two straws?" Ayers said in his first interview since the controversy began. "I think my relationship with Obama was probably like thousands of others in Chicago. And, like millions and millions of others, I wish I knew him better."

I can honestly say I'm glad he didn't know Obama better. But at least this story dismisses all the dire warnings, innuendo, and bullshit we've been hearing from Sarah Palin for the last month.

Regardless of Palin's efforts, these attacks were ineffectual. Maybe they even backfired. Why did McCain even agree to such a strategy? Well, Newsweek's postmortem on the McCain campaign has this tidbit:

Palin launched her attack on Obama’s association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain’s advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.

I guess that's what you get for picking a "maverick." I wonder if McCain has any regrets? Bill Ayers certainly has regrets about his own past:

"I wish I'd been wiser," he said. "I wish I'd been more effective. I wish I'd been more unifying. I wish I'd been more principled."

In other words, he wishes he had been more like Barack Obama.

Roy the Forklift Driver

"Uneducated Forklift Driver To Address Nation On Rush Limbaugh Radio Show: Nation Eagerly Awaits Ohio Man's Profound Insight Into Current Events." -- The Onion, May 29, 1993

I can't separate reality from parody any more. It's like the smart people are all gone, and our country is becoming an idiocracy.

I thought I had closed the door on Joe the Plumber (aka Samuel J. Wurzelbacher), but he won't go away. In fact, Joe plans to enjoy a lot more than just 15 minutes of fame. He has signed a management deal meant to keep him around long past this election.

God help us all.

The McCain campaign would like to portray Joe as the common working man. But in reality, Joe is a product of right wing talk radio and eight years of the Karl Rove brand of propaganda. And for some absurd reason, people are asking Joe for his insight into the world's problems.

Hey Joe, let me give you some advice instead: Get a plumber's license and pay your taxes.

But all funniness aside, I see the McCain campaign's obvious strategy. Both Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin are explicitly communicating to a mostly white, rural, undereducated audience. And underneath all the folksiness there exists a dangerous and irresponsible message. The MSM is largely missing Palin and Joe's calls for extreme actions because they (the elitist media) don't understand the vernacular:

Put simply, if Palin says "Barack Obama consorts with terrorists", she is making the assertion that he supports acts of violence against American citizens and the media will refute this obviously false assertion. If, instead, Palin says he "pals around with terrorists", she's used code-switching to mask the seriousness of the charge, obfuscating her meaning enough to get away with making an assertion that inevitably calls for the imprisonment or even assassination of a political opponent.

I know many people have sensed the underlying motive behind Palin's rhetoric, but when described in terms of code-switching, I realized that words I thought were imprecise (like palling) are actually very precise to the intended audience.

But this entire angry hate-mongering McCain campaign is in sharp contrast to Obama's calm and sensible pitch to the American people last night where he made calls for unity and a brighter future... without even mentioning McCain's name once.

Blah Blah Blah

This is John McCain's analysis on nuclear power safety (if video doesn't show, click here):



So that's how he dismisses nuclear safety? "Blah, blah, blah?" I guess this shouldn't surprise me coming from the man who would sing "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran." McCain is not a proponent of careful analysis, and neither are his fans. In fact, they applaud his flippancy. (Check out the impostor Sarah Palin right behind him).

Also, check out this history of nuclear accidents, and then consider the intentional sabotage that could occur at the hands of terrorists:

Considering the fact that a nuclear plant houses more than a thousand times the radiation as released in an atomic bomb blast, the magnitude of a single attack could reach beyond 100,000 deaths and the immediate loss of tens of billions of dollars. The land and properties destroyed (your insurance won't cover nuclear disasters) would remain useless for decades and would become a stark monument reminding the world of the terrorists' ideology. With more than 100 reactors in the United States alone, if one is successfully destroyed, just threatening additional attacks could instill the sort of high impact terror which is being sought by a new breed of terrorists.

If McCain wants to be so nonchalant about nuclear power safety, then voters should reconsider his credibility on the issues of national security.

The B Hoax

Apparently, 'B' is for big black boogie man.

You've heard the story of Ashley Todd, the young woman who cut a backwards 'B' into her cheek and claimed an angry black Obama supporter did it to her. Before the facts were established, while the police were justifiably skeptical, bloggers and the mainstream media enthusiastically pushed the story. Fox News salivated, and the network's executive vice president, John Moody, commented on the demented scandal:

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.

I'm baffled why any voter would have reconsidered their support for Obama because of the actions of one person reported to be the same race as Obama. I was equally confused why revelations of a hoax would reflect on McCain.

However, the evidence that McCain's communication director pushed an incendiary version of the story to reporters does indeed reflect on McCain and his campaign. At worst, their eagerness reaffirms my fears that they are intentionally fanning the flames of racism. At best, it merely adds to the campaign's stench of desperation.

One reason why I get upset over these stories is because I've seen it all before, and it plays out the same damn way every time. In 1989, Charles Stuart claimed a black man shot his wife after jumping into their car while stopped at a traffic light. In 1994, Susan Smith claimed a black man stole her car with her two sons still strapped in their car seats. In both cases, reporters were slow to ask critical questions, but police eventually uncovered the true stories of murder and deception. I must say that the Pittsburgh Police Department was remarkably quick in getting a confession from Todd.

But there is a sinister history in this country that is too distant to be remembered by the living but too near to to be called ancient. This most horrible part of American history is documented on the once common postal card souvenir.

These images remind me that there always emerges a segment of the population who believe that their own anger and revulsion justifies denying due process to the accused.

That is why I get very afraid when people fan the flames of racism and then think it's not "such a big deal."

From Russia With Love

If I understand it correctly, this letter should be scandalous. I have copied and pasted the text of the October 20, 2008 letter here, but you can read the letter and header for yourself on the UN Member States Portal.

STATEMENT

20 October 2008

ON FUNDRAISING LETTER FROM

JOHN MCCAIN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

We have received a letter from Senator John McCain requesting financial contribution to his Presidential campaign.

In this connection we would like to reiterate that Russian officials, the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations or the Russian Government do not finance political activity in foreign countries.

Ok, so what's up with this? I knew McCain was desperate, but this is insane. How did it happen? Did they ask Sarah Palin to help out and send letters to "red states"? Oh, no. McCain's campaign is saying it was a computer glitch. Is there any way they can blame this on David Kernell, the email hacker?

Also, the solicitation was illegal according to the Washington Post:

It is illegal for an American political candidate to accept campaign contributions from a foreign government. "It was just a mistake. We don't solicit folks who can't give," said McCain-Palin spokesman Brian Rogers. Asked whether there were any other ambassadors that they planned to solicit, Rogers laughed and said, "I hope not. Maybe we'll find out tomorrow."

But nobody ever gets prosecuted for these transgressions. What I really want to know is how does this help promote McCain's Red Scare? He's certainly getting plenty of voters worked up over socialism as demonstrated by a diner yelling at Obama, "Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!"

I scratch my head, and I want to ask them, "do ya'all understand what socialism is? Do ya'all understand this bailout bill that Bush signed?"

If the next president creates a modern-day WPA, I think ya'all start liking a little socialism.

A Plumber or a Plant?

During last night's Presidential debates, we all learned about Joe the Plumber. We were told that Joe was the common hard-working man who would be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Throughout the rest of the debate, McCain and Obama both addressed Joe the Plumber more than 20 times as if he was some kind of stand-in for the whole entire nation.

As Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (that's his real name, but I'll call him Joe) enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame today, we were treated to a smorgasbord of his opinions on issues ranging from social security to the war in Iraq. Watch this collage of Joe's greatest hits from the Daily Show, and then tell me if Joe really represents you. He doesn't represent me:



The Daily Show hit on some of today's revelations about Joe: he's not an undecided voter, his real first name is Samuel, he doesn't have a plumber's license, never completed an apprenticeship and does not belong to the plumber’s union, which has endorsed Barack Obama. Also, Joe, who owes back taxes, is unlikely to have an income level that would qualify him for a tax increase under Obama's plan, and if he does make over $250,000... well, then I think he should count his blessings.

Anyway, I don't understand the uproar over Obama's comment regarding "spreading the wealth around." You can watch the entire conversation between Obama and Joe on YouTube. I realize that any talk about redistributing wealth freaks out conservatives, but we've had a progressive tax in this country since the passage of the 16th Amendment, and 81% of economists support progressive taxation. So whether we have Obama's plan or McCain's plan, we're still spreading the wealth around!

One last topic before I attempt to close the door on Joe the Plumber. Was he a plant? I mean is he really an ordinary guy looking for an honest answer, or did the GOP put him up to this? A few blogs are saying he has a relationship to Charles Keating. Of course, guilt by association sucks, but McCain's campaign should have vetted this guy before making him their mascot.

Updated 11/13/2008: Ooops. The entire Keating relationship was a hoax started by a man who is himself a hoax. The MSM also fell for his tricks, so I guess I'm in good company or bad company depending how you look at it.

Joe The Plumber, If You're Out There...

Sarah Palin wants you to give Levi a call. He's going to need a job to support his wife and child...

Tonight's debate wasn't bad. I like this format better. The candidates actually debated! You can read the transcript here.

I thought Obama was cool, clear and collected. I thought McCain grew angrier as the night went on... And as he grew angrier, I grew angrier too -- angry at McCain. Here are a few of the memorable moments.

McCain says his ads went negative because Obama refused to do the many town hall debates that McCain wanted. What kind of whiny excuse is that? Please, McCain, you're responsible for your campaign's actions. You can't blame Obama.

A few minutes later, my anger meter was up again when McCain repeated the right-wing bullshit that ACORN is destroying the fabric of democracy. I blogged about these lies yesterday, so please take a look at that post if you want a little truth about ACORN and wingnuts.

Then came the much discussed issue of Bill Ayers. McCain reminds me of one of those "harsh interrogators" where the truth isn't good enough for him. McCain keeps yelling "tell me more" when Obama is honestly telling him all there is to tell. McCain keeps implying some diabolical plot between the two, while the real story is a dull one about two organizers trying to help their community.

Furthermore, when McCain was asked about the hostile tone of his rallies, his dismissive response was "I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies. " What? I'm disturbed over the angry shouts from his supporters, and I wanted to hear some words of balance from McCain. I guess I was hoping for too much.

Next, McCain brings up Palin's support for special-needs families. That's an important subject. Palin knows something about this subject because of her own child but also because her own state has a unique standing: "The byproducts of oil production can cause serious nervous system disorders, and the North Slope and its environs, home to Alaska Natives and itinerant oil workers, has the highest prevalence of birth defects in the state--11 percent--compared with 6 percent statewide and 3 percent nationwide." Sarah Palin, as governor, has not addressed these concerns.

If the candidates wanted to talk about special-needs, there should have been a follow-up question about the Community Choice Act. This legislation addresses the independence of people with disabilities. Obama has a clear statement of support on his web site. McCain, though, clearly does not support this legislation.

Here is where Obama is the realist. He knows that supporting special-needs means increasing funding. Funding is needed for research and it's needed for support services. You can't say you support people with disabilities while at the same time taking the proverbial hatchet to programs that help them and their families!

Maybe this issue is the best illustration of where Obama and McCain are very different candidates. Obama would give careful and calm consideration to these programs. McCain is an ideologue who speaks in absolute terms of hatchets, vetoes, and drilling. Drill baby, drill.

In contrast, Obama genuinely cares about finding common ground -- notably on the issues of abortion and preventing unwanted pregnancy. McCain, again, aggravates me (and probably a million other women) when he ridicules the life and health considerations of the mother during these difficult decisions.

McCain keeps saying that the American voter is angry. Well, kind of. I've been angry with the Bush administration for quite a while and it's easy to mistake McCain for Bush... But with the current economic crisis, I've been mostly scared. Tonight, however, I am an angry voter... angry at John McCain. That's probably not the results he was hoping for.

Surreal

I don't like to overuse this word, but today is a day I can describe as surreal. When I watch these recent videos at GOP rallies where audience members are shouting "treason" and "kill him" whenever the name Barack Obama is mentioned... when I see McCain's supporters laughing at Joe Biden's tragic story of losing his wife and daughter... when McCain and Palin encourage threats by not discouraging them... what other word can I use?

I've never seen a presidential candidate act so purely anti-American. Nine months ago I never dreamed I'd be so horrified with McCain. I admit I never loved him, but I expected to see a fair and honorable campaign not this desperate shit.

And what will happen if McCain and Palin win? It's bad enough we're fearful over our economy and national security, but now McCain is determined to divide us? I'm disgusted.

McCain is not a man who can lead the world or this country. Sure he can play to his rally audience. That's what he's doing. Working the converted into a mob mentality. I fear the result will be a repeat of last summer's Valley Unitarian Universalist Church shooting. McCain and Palin only need to trigger one mentally-unstable bigot...

McCain and Palin inspire hatred and praise Jesus all in the same breath.

The Secret Service are now investigating the threat made at the McCain-Palin event. What will it take before they investigate Sarah Palin?

Town Hall Debate

Without looking at any poll results, I'm confident tonight's debate was not a game changer.

First, I want to comment on what wasn't discussed tonight: the whole guilt by association bullshit. Neither candidate pursued the attacks face-to-face. That's good, but clearly McCain is leaving that job up to his attack dog Sarah Palin. It must be tricky for McCain to run two very different campaigns at the same time...

On the economy, both candidates seem like socialists. That's no surprise from a Democratic candidate, but from a Republican? And the guy who says government needs to get out of the way? Well, now McCain says he would "order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America..." Is this in addition to the $800 billion Emergency Economic Stabilization bill? McCain the gambler wants to double down?

On energy independence, McCain is really pushing nuclear power now. I don't understand why this subject is getting a free pass. It needs to be debated and the public needs to be informed. Solar and wind power are clean and abundant and would lead to true independence. Calling nuclear power "clean" is misleading, and the necessary uranium is mined from a few friendly and not-so-friendly countries. This whole nuclear power revival is estimated to cost $315 billion.

On national security and terrorism, both candidates are confident they know how to catch Osama Bin Laden. Obama sounds like he's sticking to Bush's current course: "encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants." He emphasized that catching Bin Laden and crushing Al Qaeda would be a national security priority.

McCain's response to that same issue was one of the stranger moments tonight. First he twisted Obama's reply claiming that Obama would attack Pakistan. Does he think we're all deaf or does he think we all lack short-term memory? Or are those McCain's own deficiencies? Anyway, I trust my own hearing-aids and I know Obama did NOT say that. Obama insisted on having a moment to correct the issue where he repeated his strategy once again. I hope McCain got it the second time around.

Let's avoid bizarre moments in the next debate. I offer some advice to the candidates:

• Refrain from patronizing your opponent. Phrases like "that one" sound belittling.
• Stop joking. You proved that you're not funny tonight (McCain, I'm looking at you) with your odd jab at Tom Brokaw. Anyway, your audience has been instructed to not laugh or applaud, and I don't think they wanted to.
• Answer the questions.
• Mention the middle class. Most people think they are middle class.
• Don't admit you were a fraternity brother with Teddy Roosevelt. It makes you sound old.

Finally, explain to me how we can afford all these bailouts, bombs and nuke plants without raising taxes on somebody! This country can't run on fumes any longer.

Loaded Words

The loaded word today is "terrorist." It's a hard to define thing. A person is a terrorist if they try to create fear in a population through violence and intimidation with the goal of promoting their own ideology. We're all aware that the people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 were terrorists.

But apparently words evolve.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin picked up a newspaper (one out of the infinite number that she reads), and declared that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists:

"Well, I was reading my copy of today's New York Times and I was really interested to read about Barack's friends from Chicago," Palin told the crowd. "Turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man who, according to The New York Times was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol.' These are the same guys who think patriotism is paying higher taxes. This is not a man who sees America as you and I do -- as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country. This, ladies and gentlemen, has nothing to do with the kind of change anyone can believe in -- not my kids and not your kids."

Yes, this is clearly a desperate move from McCain's trash-talk express -- a desperate move and a lie:

One might note at the outset that Obama has had dealings with just one domestic terrorist—former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers—and that "palling around" is hardly a good description of this passing acquaintanceship. Obama and Ayers were both politically active members of Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and both were affiliated with the neighborhood's University of Chicago. But the very New York Times article that Palin cited as a source concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close."

So now, according to Sarah Palin, the new definition of "terrorist" includes those who cross paths with a rehabilitated 60's radical.

I've been reluctant to come right out and say this in the past few weeks, but is Sarah Palin stupid? She wants us to draw fearful conclusions from these crossed paths, yet ignore the straight line between her, her husband, and The Alaskan Independence Party -- a party formed with the goal of seceding from the union and establishing Alaska as an independent state?

Furthermore, how can I trust a McCain-Palin administration to protect me from terrorists when they now stick the label on their political enemies and anybody different than "us"? The trash-talk express is headed down a dangerous road.

Because "terrorist" isn't the only loaded language in Palin's remark. She says "This is not a man who sees America as you and I do." I have no doubt that the "not like you and I" part was carefully crafted racism.

This video shows the real impact of McCain and Palin's fear strategy:



Shouts of "terrorist" now replace any intelligent conversation about the economy, energy policy, or our future. I hope that on November 4, McCain and Palin's loaded words backfire.

Plate of Pork

So is the Emergency Economic Stabilization bill a bailout, a bribe, a rescue, or a rape?

The legislation that aims to save Wall Street was originally criticized for costing $700 billion. How did lawmakers make it more appetizing? By adding pork! (About $100 billion in pork also known as earmarks.) Congress then overwhelmingly passed it and Bush quickly signed it.

What are we getting for our money? I'll just cut and paste a few portions of the bill:

TITLE III--EXTENSION OF BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS

• Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
• Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
• Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
• Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
• Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail space.
• Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt organizations.
• Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions of property.
• Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
• Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
• Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
• Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
• Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico.
• Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
• Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
• Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
• Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
• Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
• Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
• Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
• Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf Opportunity Zone.
• Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
• Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
• Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
• Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventory.
• Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.

I've only highlighted the ones I found most crazy. But the craziness doesn't end there.

TITLE V--ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF AND OTHER TAX PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--General Provisions

• Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
• Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
• Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
• Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon Valdez litigation.
• Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year property.
• Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer's liability by tax return preparer.

Subtitle B--Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008

• Sec. 511. Short title.
• Sec. 512. Mental health parity.

TITLE VI--OTHER PROVISIONS

• Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
• Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.

Again, I'm just highlighting the ones I found most crazy. They are all crazy because they have little or nothing to do with bailing out Wall Street! They were thrown in without any debates. I think something like mental health parity should have been discussed.

This bill was rushed because we were told it was urgent. I heard very few voices questioning the urgency. We were told something needed to be done. When the original bill failed, the Dow lost a record 777 points. But after the new bill was approved by Congress, the Dow ended down 157 points. We're so fickle!

What doesn't the bill have? There is little about new oversight, little to rescue families facing foreclosure, and little to curb executive pay.

Can you remember back about a month ago when John McCain and Sarah Palin wrote a piece for the WSJ titled We'll Protect Taxpayers from More Bailouts? Can you remember back when McCain vowed that as president he would veto every single bill with earmarks? But by casting his first vote in months, he broke those vows.

I guess he shouldn't criticize Obama now for voting on that earmark-laden energy bill that included tax breaks for oil companies while also providing investment for alternative energy.

There are many reasons to criticize this bill and the politics that brought it to us, and I just can't bring myself to call it a bailout or a rescue. That only leaves my other two choices.

The Debates

Yeah, I watched the debates tonight. Honestly, I thought it was dull... but let me put some positive spin on that remark. It's good that they stuck to the economy and foreign policy because these are the problems threatening us. But neither candidate surprised me -- it's hard to surprise me when I know their positions already.

What's important is how the undecided voters react. CBS has some early results of an opinion poll of 500 uncommitted voters:

Forty percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-two percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-eight percent saw it as a draw.

I was a little worried that Obama came across as too congenial and the public would see that as a weakness, but maybe I'm wrong...

Speaking of being wrong, Obama was at his strongest when he pointed out when McCain has been dead wrong especially about the war with Iraq:

OBAMA: Look, I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and as he explains, and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that, don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

But that's Senate inside baseball. But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families.

They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.

And so John likes -- John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong.

You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong. And so my question is...

LEHRER: Senator Obama...

OBAMA: ... of judgment, of whether or not -- of whether or not -- if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment.

And at another point Obama addressed the lessons of Iraq:

OBAMA: Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.

Now six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war at a time when it was politically risky to do so because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world, and whether our intelligence was sound, but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.

We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put al Qaeda to rest, and as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction. Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment.

And I wish I had been wrong for the sake of the country and they had been right, but that's not the case. We've spent over $600 billion so far, soon to be $1 trillion. We have lost over 4,000 lives. We have seen 30,000 wounded, and most importantly, from a strategic national security perspective, al Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than at any time since 2001.

We took our eye off the ball. And not to mention that we are still spending $10 billion a month, when they have a $79 billion surplus, at a time when we are in great distress here at home, and we just talked about the fact that our budget is way overstretched and we are borrowing money from overseas to try to finance just some of the basic functions of our government.

So I think the lesson to be drawn is that we should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

McCain bit back with:

MCCAIN: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind. That's the decision of the next president of the United States.

Is McCain not understanding this major criticism on his judgment? If he was wrong about going into Iraq, is he going to be wrong about going into Iran, Pakistan, or Russia or whoever the hell he wants to bomb next? I think McCain is doomed to make the same bad judgments again.

One question I wish the moderator had asked was how we define "winning" in Iraq. We can't have a meaningful discussion without this definition.

By the way, check out the fact checking on the debates. I suspected Obama was right about Kissinger's position on negotiations without preconditions.

Alternative News?

In between the banking crisis, presidential campaigns, and the world's obsession with Sarah Palin, other stuff is going on in the USA believe it or not.

From the New York Times:

Senior White House officials played a central role in deliberations in the spring of 2002 about whether the Central Intelligence Agency could legally use harsh interrogation techniques while questioning an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Zubaydah, according to newly released documents.

In meetings during that period, the officials debated specific interrogation methods that the C.I.A. had proposed to use on Qaeda operatives held at secret C.I.A. prisons overseas, the documents show. The meetings were led by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, and attended by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top administration officials.

Why are we still using the phrase "harsh interrogation techniques" when we all know it's torture? I have no tolerance for euphemisms in these serious matters. But watching officials cover their asses is mildly amusing:

“I recall being told that U.S. military personnel were subjected in training to certain physical and psychological interrogation techniques and that these techniques had been deemed not to cause significant physical or psychological harm,” Ms. Rice, now secretary of state, wrote in response to one question.

I've never liked Rice because of her epic mistakes as national security adviser, but despite her screw-ups, she would have been a much better VP choice for McCain. It's sad that the Republicans got scared when they heard the rumors that Rice is a lesbian. It sure would have been an interesting election without the Christian conservatives on the Republican's side.

Anyway, maybe now that McCain and Obama have raced off to Washington to show us how they operate, they could also take a look at this whole torture issue. I'd like to know if we'll ever prosecute any high-level officials for these war crimes. We may never hold Bush or Cheney accountable, but maybe we can impeach Bybee?

And maybe we can find that $13 billion meant for reconstruction in Iraq. Seems the money has been wasted, stolen, and diverted to al-Qaeda.

Is it just a coincidence that these big stories are breaking during a week that the press is focused on the economy, the election, and Sarah Palin?

Missing in Action?

Hey, where is George W. Bush? In the middle of this financial crisis, his spokesman has made some outrageous comments about wanting to protect CEOs from caps on compensation... but no real leadership from our President? I'm not surprised.

Of course, we're hearing a lot from the US Treasury Secretary as he offers us a "cash for trash" plan. We're also hearing more from Obama and McCain as they offer platitudes on how they would fix things.

But what really irks me about McCain -- besides his plan to deregulate heath-care like he deregulated banking, besides the fact that many of his advisers worked for Bush, besides the fact that he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate -- is his comment about the "fundamentals of our economy" being strong and the ensuing defense of that comment.

We're expected to honestly believe that by "fundamentals" McCain meant the ingenuity of the American people? When was that ever the question? When has our ingenuity ever been weak? I can only see this as a cynical attempt to turn an elitist comment into an acclamation of the working man. What bullshit.

I can understand why Bush is hiding. He doesn't want to be seen with McCain and nobody wants to be seen with Bush. And oh yeah, also Bush's approval rating has sunk to 19%.