Guilty As Charged

One of Obama's crew, Cass Sunstein, has written a book called Going To Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide.

If you can't already tell from the title the premise is that when we get around people who think like us we become more strident in our views and apparently the Web is particularly bad about this (so if you are reading this and find yourself not always agreeing with me—way to go for operating outside your comfort zone!).

Alrighty then, I guess I need to fess up that I am certain I am guilty of this, not that I wouldn't be a flame throwing liberal regardless, but it is easy to see that my knickers are more twisted up after a good hour with Olbermann. That being said, while the Right may not agree, I do find that folks like Bill Maher aren't exactly toeing the total Democrat line and I appreciate when he has non-liberal guests. But unlike the spouse, I can't really bring myself to partake much of FOX. I think he mostly does it for kicks and giggles, but he says it is to see what the other side is saying and I believe he is somewhat sincere in that regard.

It is interesting, because we accuse (and by we I mean me as well) the terrorists and evangelicals of falling prey to this kind of polarization and obviously all groups are susceptible to this. Equally intriguing is how our modern conveniences seem to lend to our ability to segregate rather than bringing us together like they are so often touted as doing.

Spies Like Us

Well Obama has messed up big time in my opinion. (I know I will give you a moment to sit down and read this again, yes I have criticized our new president who is a Democrat—take your time, I have a while.) Obama has sided with the Bush Administration on wire taping and is actually seeking to expand the whole shebang so that the government can NEVER be sued for listening in on normal Americans. So not only has he protected Bush's folks on torture, but now he is also doing the same on surveillance.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is throwing around terms like "state secrets" and "sovereign immunity" to explain why they think in the words of Salon's Glenn Greenwald "the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications."
Greenwald goes on to say:

In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad "state secrets" privilege invented by the Bush administration and now embraced fully by the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and -- even if what they're doing is blatantly illegal and they know it's illegal -- you are barred from suing them unless they "willfully disclose" to the public what they have learned.

I get that Obama's administration doesn't want to piss off the folks who are doing intelligence work, but this seems to go against everything that Obama ran on. It brings me no joy to denounce Obama and the DOJ on this, but this kind of continuation and expansion of Bush-era tactics is something that we can not stand for as Americans. Not cool Mr. President.

As a citizen I am not at all comfortable with the idea that we citizens have no recourse against being bugged by our government. Hello, what about my civil liberties folks? Yeah I believe that Obama and his government is a better bunch than Bush, but that still doesn't make it cool. I don't want Gandhi listening in on my calls or reading my emails. I don't care who you are, I want my privacy no matter how inconvenient it is to my government or my political party.

Olbermann covers it in his fifth story last night:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And here is a skoosh more from Keith:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

With Interest

If you want something cheerful, I hope you skipped President Obama's first press conference on Monday night. He was informed and deliberate and thoughtful, and depressing as hell. But as serious as things are, I guess I would rather hear the truth than the lies that we have become so accustomed to over the previous eight years.

Things just seem to be unraveling all over (like the time the spawn pulled the needle out of my knitting . . .), but I might be projecting some other things on the political arena as well.

Back on topic. Maxine Waters is my new hero. At least for the moment. She gave the bankers a talking to yesterday that in my opinion is long overdue. First she expressed her disapproval of the bankers in general. Next she lined up her first shot, asking them to raise their hands if they had raised interest rates on credit cards since receiving their portions of last fall's $700 billion bailout. Hands were raised all around. She followed up, asking if they reduced people's line of credit for shopping at certain stores. No hands were raised on that. I wished if she had just asked if they had lowered the lines of credit. Because I know they have done that.

Olbermann did a nice bit on this whole thing last night, highlighting Barney Frank's question as to why these yeah-who's need bonuses and what they would do differently if they didn't get them. Waters is interviewed about half way into the interview.

Waters may be a bit of a nut, but Olbermann is right, she raised the issues that REAL Americans care about. Yes I hate these jack asses have private jets and desks worth tens of thousands of dollars, but what I hate more is that they are fucking with our lives everyday through our credit cards, our mortgages, our lending. And I want it to stop. And I want them to be charged interest.

First Comes Love

I have always felt that sexuality exists on some sort of continuum–that there is no such thing as 100% heterosexual or homosexual, just variations on a theme if you will. (Trust me, this isn't my only crazy idea—I also believe [apologies to my Christian readers] that there might be something to reincarnation, if for no other reason than it is like recycling and why would god be so wasteful as to not reuse a life force?)

Anyway, I guess what I mean is that someone could be 80% heterosexual and 20% homosexual. Think about it. If you close your eyes and only touch someone with your lips (no whiskers to clue you in) you have no way of knowing if you are kissing a guy or girl. A kiss is a kiss is a kiss. I get that there are other body parts involved, but hopefully you get my drift.

This theory is just one of the reasons I was incredibly saddened by the decisions in California, Arizona and Florida to add state constitutional bans on gay marriage. Not to mention the fact that by the time the spawn is grown this will no longer be an issue, the majority of people younger than me now don't care, by the time the spawn votes, fewer will care. And like the spawn, many will have grown up with gay relatives in committed relationships.

I heard someone on Air America explain it like this (I think it was Randi Rhodes, but I am not certain)—this isn't an issue about whether or not you think being gay is right or wrong. This is a civil rights issue. Simply put, by saying that someone can't get married, be they gay or black or whatever, you are denying them a right that others possess. That is illegal in out country. Remember when the Supreme Court struck down the whole "separate but equal" argument with schools? Same thing here.

Finally, there is my crush du jour's heartfelt plea, do unto others indeed . . .

Outrageous? Or Courageous?

Talk about getting your mojo back. Despite his rumored marital woes with the other Jennifer, Ben Affleck gave a standout performance goofing on MSNBC's Keith Olbermann this past Saturday on SNL. If that show would stick to politically based skits it might get its own mojo back as well.

Check it out:

Today's Palin

From the Know Your Constitution corner:

Olbermann calls Palin on not knowing what the real duties of the VP are. And it ain't making policy in the Senate.

From the Hockey Mom/Joe Six Pack corner:

The RNC has apparently spend $150,000 to clothe Palin and her family at Saks, Neiman Marcus and Barneys. Not to shabby, does that mean the rest of us "real Americans" get to cast aside Target, Old Navy and other bargain-esque retailers? Hey, I'm all for that. Should I just send the bills to the RNC or McCain personally? I don't think every item of clothing in my house, mine, the spouse's and the spawn's, would equal $150,000 and trust me folks I like to shop. But it's okay, because the RNC swears the clothes will get donated to charity after the campaign is over.

Once Again, I Give You Olbermann

Why should I trouble my pretty head to write something deep and coherent when my MSNBC crush can do it oh-so-much better?

Behold Olbermann on the recent rantings and ravings of the McCainiacs (or you can read the text here)  . .

Phoning It In

Since I know tomorrow's post debate posting will be lengthy and I am feeling lazy, I am going to let Keith Olbermann do my work for me today. It is always good fun to watch him get riled up and last night's special comment was a bit less righteous indignation and a bit more humor. So without further ado, Mr. Olbermann:

Hitting the Rim

Many moons ago, the Bush White House "discovered" a letter from Iraqi security chief Tahir Jalil Habbush to Saddam Hussein. The letter showed a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein—Mohammad Atta (lead man on September 11) had trained in Iraq and  al-Qaida had been involved with some mysterious shipments from Niger to Iraq, which were believed to contain yellow cake uranium. Dubya and the boys (sorry Condi) viewed this as the "slam dunk" they needed to make their case for invading Iraq.

As Ron Suskind has been so kind to back up with fact what many of us have long believed, this letter wasn't quite kosher. Point of fact, it was a bald-faced lie. This week his book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism, detailing the events leading up to this letter as well as the aftermath was published. Suskind's sources are two former CIA officials—Rob Richer and John Maguire— who have said CIA Director George Tenet ordered them to create the forged document. And yes he has the men's interviews on tape.

Richer and Maguire have made a statement. First from Richer:

I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document ... as outlined in Mr. Suskind's book. 

Richer, the CIA's former deputy director of clandestine operations, then added that he had spoken with Maguire (former head of the CIA's Iraq Operations Group at the time), currently in Iraq on a consultant basis, who gave permission to state the following on his behalf:

I never received any instruction from then Chief/NE Rob Richer or any other officer in my chain of command instructing me to fabricate such a letter. Further, I have no knowledge to the origins of the letter and as to how it circulated in Iraq.

And of course the Bush folk issued their own statement, courtesy of the White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto. "The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd."

Bless Dennis Kucinich's heart. He must be salivating over the possibility of his impeachment motions against Bush and Cheney actually gaining some traction. Now of course, between the denials of the sources and no smoking gun other than said sources memories, those less inclined to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy might cry foul over Suskind's allegations.

But really folks, do you put anything past Dubya and the boys at this point? Ain't nothing straight about those boys except the creases in their pants. They are crooked and would lie to their own mothers.

Now if the Bush administration had actually paid attention to what Habbush, their source was saying, rather than what they wanted him to say, it looks like we could have avoided this whole debacle (not that avoiding war was ever something Dubya was interested in–he had a stiffie to be a "War Time President" as soon as the Supreme Court handed him the keys to the White House). Suskind notes that in January 2003 (the letter appeared in September of the same year) Habbush told British Intelligence that Saddam's nuclear program and chemical weapon stockpile were a thing of the past–the distant past, Saddam kibboshed them TWELVE years earlier.

Tenet's response to this news, "They're (the Bush Administration) not going to like this downtown." The information that Habbush supplied went away.

Salon offers a pretty even handed review of the book, which is about much more, good and bad, than this one episode—in fact the forged letter gotcha doesn't appear until page 370.

And last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann had an exclusive with Suskind as well, it is about 13 minutes long if you have the time.

Subconscious Musings

Sad, but true gentle readers, even my subconscious veers into the political. Yesterday, I read this great article from The New Yorker about Keith Olbermann. It is a long piece, but I enjoyed it and it must have planted the man in my head because last night I dreamt I was hitting on him in some apartment as we were putting away groceries. Later in the same dream, Tim Russert appeared, we had a conversation and when he left I said, 'Bye Uncle Pete.' In my dream as soon as I said that I knew that his name wasn't Pete, it was Tim. And of course I don't really have an Uncle Pete. Random.

I am not a dream expert, but I do think this is a rather curious one.

In Memoriam

Tim Russert

May 7, 1950—June 13, 2008

Nothing glib today, gentle readers. Broad minded is still in mourning for the late Tim Russert. Cover the mirrors and stop the clocks, journalism has lost a great voice.

I learned of Russert's truly untimely death during a longer than intended layover in Atlanta. I was stunned and bereft. Obviously I didn't know the man, but I had come to know the integrity and decency he brought to the political arena. Russert was not a mere pundit. He was a seeker of the truth; he was a paragon of honor; he was dedicated to reliability. It took every ounce of my hatred of public displays of emotion to not shed a tear. And it wasn't just me, the husband was equally devastated–unable to say anything more than "it was really sad" when I asked what they did on Meet the Press yesterday morning.

While Keith Olbermann's passion and righteous indignation arouses me and Chris Matthews' waggling jowls and blatant obsequiousness mixed with rampant sexism angers me, the stalwart Russert was always even keeled and judicious in his pursuit of fact. He informed me.

Meet the Press under Russert was an institution, one that has now lost its rudder. Who could possibly guide that ship in any manner remotely equal to Russerts'? I am at a loss for a news person today that has the same combination of steely resolve, goodness and intelligence. Tim Russert was unlike any other.

Condolences to his family and friends, as well as the media at large. We have all lost one of the last, great purveyors of journalism, of truth, of integrity.

Rest in Peace.

Poll Vault

Speaking of polls, the Pew Research Center's latest has Obama with a solid lead over Clinton (54 percent to 41 percent nationally). Last month, the two were about equal.

Meanwhile, we hope things will be winding down come next week, when Puerto Rico phones in its primary results on Sunday. (Burning question—Will Ricky Martin's endorsement of Clinton today give her the island's nod?) Tuesday the final two democratic primaries happen in Montana and South Dakota. And then it is all over but the shouting.

And day three of the McClellan lynching goes on. Scotty is all over the TV, appearing on The Today Show this morning and popping up with my buddy Olbermann tonight. 

While the White House may be puzzled by all this, what I am puzzled by is the near riot that apparently broke out in NYC when promoters of the Sex and the City movie oversold tickets to the premiere. Listen ladies, I am pretty darn excited about this movie—feminism be damned—but methinks you might need to rethink some of your priorities if you are willing to riot over a movie ticket. I love SJP and all the other ladies, but really?

Strange days indeed.

I Heart Olbermann

If dude doesn't stroke out from the force of his anger towards Dubya, he has a heart of steel. No offense to the spouse, who will always be number one in my heart, but dang if Keith Olbermann doesn't get me hot and bothered when he does one of his special comments.

And last night's was a doozy. Mainly focusing on Bush's statement that he gave up golf in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Olbermann expresses in his oh-so-eloquent way, that not only is this sort of "sacrifice" a joke, but it isn't even one that Bush is honest about. (Bush claims to have given up golf in August of 2003, but there are images of him still playing as late as October 2003.) Olbermann addresses Bush's arrogance about the war by telling him that the war in Iraq isn't about him or his grief as more and more Americans come home in boxes.

He finishes his rant by saying: "Shut the hell up!" And sounding like he was much more inclined to say shut the fuck up.

If you are in the mood to get stirred up, you can watch the clip here.

The Evil Empire Strikes Back

Here's another one for the file on why Wal-Mart is evil. The Wall Street Journal reported last fall that Deborah Shank, a former Wal-Mart stocker was involved in a car accident where she was hit by a semi about 8 years ago now. She ended up permanently brain damaged and in a wheel chair, requiring nursing home care. The trucking company gave her an accident settlement. After attorney's fees, she was left with $417,000 in a trust fund to pay for her ongoing care.

Meanwhile, there was a clause in her Wal-Mart healthcare plan that gave them the right to recoup any money they paid in medical expenses if someone gets a settlement from those injuries. So Wal-Mart sued Shank for $470,000.

Now her expenses are being paid by Medicaid and Social Security (i.e. you and I). Meanwhile the woman has lost her 18-year-old son in Iraq, shortly after he arrived there and due to her brain damage she doesn't always remember that he has died. Her husband divorced her in the hopes that she might be eligible for more money for her care as a single woman. She is not aware of this fact.

Apparently, many companies have a clause in their plans that allows them to pull this kind of stunt, but up until recently it has not often been used. Also, a recent Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for companies to actually proceed with these kinds of cases and get results.

Here is just another way that rising healthcare costs are hurting Americans—not just Shank and her family, but every taxpayer who is now having to bear the burden of the cost of her care so Wal-Mart (who made BILLIONS in profit last year) can put another hundred thousand in their pocket. Nice.

MSNBC's Keith Olberman highlighted this in his Worst Person of the Day segment last night. 

The "Ism" Post

Today dear readers we are going to discuss "Isms." "Isms" you ask? Yes, those fun concepts such as sexism and racism and chauvinism. If you have been paying any attention to the news this week you will have noticed we have had a lot of fodder for all of the aforementioned "Isms."

(On a side note, "Isms" are the reason I decided to not get my PhD—after my MFA, I just couldn't take five more years of pretentious intellectuals who couldn't compose a sentence without at least two words ending in an "Ism." Yet here we are with a whole post about the dang things. Go figure.)

First, there is Mr. Spitzer and the early post about his dalliances, Fuck Gate. If you can get beyond the obviousness of his breaking the law and cheating on his wife, you still have to "swallow" (so to speak  . . . teehee, Creative Kerfuffle, that's for you!) the fact that Spitzer was Mr. Law and Order. I mean this was a dude that didn't believe in shades of grey and yet here he is swimming in a vat of Sherwin William's Meditative. Anyway, once you digest all of that information then you get to the "Ism"—and this time I think it is chauvinism. Yes, this man broke the law after not just vowing to uphold it but threatening to hunt it down and hog tie those who break it. However what I think sticks in my craw more is that this man has three daughters. And these girls will now forever know that there dad thought it was acceptable to not only cheat on their mother, but do so with a prostitute. Wow! Does anyone else see some therapy and major relationship issues ahead for these poor girls?

Moving on we come to sexism vs. racism with this week's comments from former vice presidential-nominee, Geraldine Ferrarro. I think this quote from her remarks sums it up best:

"Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

No Ms. Ferrarro, they aren't attacking you because you are white or even because you are a woman. They are attacking you because you opened your mouth and inserted not just your foot but your whole ass.

Maybe there is so truth to the idea that Obama has gotten a bit of a pass from the media and whomever because he is young and charismatic and maybe, just maybe, because he is non-Caucasian. That doesn't negate the fact that he is a smart, qualified man. And I think that Ms. Ferrarro was, in fact, trying to negate those facts. Obama remarked that it was ridiculous for anyone to say that being an African-American man running for president put him at an advantage is correct. I don't think it puts him at an advantage, it might possibly mean that in most cases people hesitate to attack him as vigorously so as to appear without racism, but I don't think it does anything else for him.

The whole thing makes me sad. While Ferrarro may have gotten a bum deal when she was named the vp candidate, I would have hoped that bitterness might have cooled in the ensuing 20 years. I guess it hasn't.

I think Keith Olbermann had a valid point the other night when he made his special comment about the Ferrarro issue.  He addressed Hillary Clinton's response to Ferrarro's comments. He believes Clinton missed an opportunity to truly denounce the comments and distance herself from it. Heck, Obama's camp fired Samantha Power for calling Clinton a "monster" but Ferrarro says Obama has gotten a break because he is a black man and yes she stepped down, but she was far from truly apologetic about it.

No Clinton just disagrees with the remarks and says the remarks were regrettable. What is regrettable is that our country continues to make a person's skin color or sex an issue.

Can't we all just grow up?

Mac Mashes, Take 2

While I wish I could say that I have avoided following up on 

the previous post due to the ickiness of imaging a 60-something John McCain getting it on with a 40-something lobbyist, I have just been too busy to devote any time to the beloved blog. Shed a tear for my neglectfulness and then let's get into it.

McCain and the lobbyist chick (Vicki Iseman) have denied any hanky panky occurred. But Chuck Todd raised an interesting point last night on Olbermann, the NY Times isn't exactly the Star or even USWeekly, so is it possible that they know more than they are letting on in the article (out of good taste)? What I think Todd was getting at, is it doesn't seem that the NY Times would run something so rumor-based if they didn't have a bit more to go on than that. Who knows, only time will tell in that regard.

But my first question is this: McCain's wife is pretty freakin' hot. Now I know that she has had her problems in the past. In fact if I remember correctly, her bout with prescription drug abuse came out around the time of the 2000 election when the alleged affair also occurred. Maybe there is a link there, maybe not. Back to my question. Cindy McCain is pretty smoking hot, full-on MILF, so what the heck could 'ole Mac have been thinking if all of this is true. (Let us hope that the photo of Iseman, left, is unfortunate and not how she really looks.)

My second question is how is the GOP going to take this, true or not? This, after all, is the same party that wanted Bill Clinton's head on a platter for getting a BJ from an intern. And that was someone from their opposing party. Here you have the possibility of a potential future president not only committing adultery, but doing it with a paid political operative. Frankly, that seems to me to be a bit of a bigger problem. An affair, that is something between a husband and wife to resolve in my opinion, not something up for public discussion. But the influence peddling that could result from a lobbyist getting "jiggy" with the prez? Ooh la la.

What do you all think? Issue or non-issue? And will the Republicans protect their own?

Mac Mashes

BREAKING NEWS

The MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann via The NY Times is reporting that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist back during the 2000 election.

More to come . . .

Brass Balls

WOW! The Democrats in the House might have actually grown a set. Instead of voting on the Protect America Act extension of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), which gives immunity to the telecoms for spying on us, they tried to hoodwink the Republicans by bringing up citations of contempt of Congress for Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers. The whiny-ass House Republicans walked out in a snit fit. Now Congress is set for a week-or-so long holiday recess and the bill will lapse. Teehee.

Dubya has his panties all in a twist about this. Even tried to do the daddy smack down and say he would postpone his upcoming trip to Africa if it would "help" the House resolve this issue. Please! Although the people of Africa were probably like, 'Please God yes, keep your brand of crazy away from us, we have enough problems right now.' As with most of Bush's statements it was bullshit, he's going to Africa, the bill will languish until Congress is back in session and of course if we are hit by terrorists in the meantime the GOP will have a field day exclaiming that it is the Democrats fault b/c they didn't allow AT&T to listen in on average Americans talking on the phone about their butt lint and hang nails.

GOOD GOD PEOPLE! I hate to be a downer, but realistically, no matter what we do or how invasive we allow our government to become there will be another terrorist attack. That is the nature of our world today. I am not saying that we shouldn't try to stop that from happening, but again, letting Verizon sell out some teenager's cell phone calls about trips to the mall to Dubya and the boys isn't going to stop that.

In other news, I have to give a shout out to Keith Olbermann from MSNBC. Talk about having balls. Bless my poor husband's heart, because last night Olbermann did one of his special commentaries about this whole FISA/spying fiasco and dang if it didn't get me hot. (Yes, I am weird like that.)

Here is an excerpt from the conclusion of his comment (click here to read or hear the message yourself, it's very stirring and impassioned):

"We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear."

And I end how I started: WOW!