Thinking about Love at Christmastime

The commandment about loving God and loving our neighbor is first and foremost. Jesus said that "all the Law and the Prophets hang upon these two commandments." (Matt 22:40) This theme is carried throughout the Bible. In 1 Peter 4:8 it is written that "above all things have fervent love for one another." Paul also said that we should put love above all else (Colossians 3:14), and that we should "owe no one anything except to love one another." (Romans 13:8)

Again and again in the Bible we repeatedly find that love is placed above all else. Love is called "more excellent than any other gift or ability. (1 Cor 12:31) "Now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor 13:13) The law of love is called the "royal law" (James 2:8), which we are "taught by God." (1 Thessalonians. 4:9) We are asked to "make love our greatest aim," (1 Cor 14:1) to "be rooted and grounded in love." (Ephesians. 3:17)

These laws about love are so important that Jesus said they should be a part of the hearts of all Christians. “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.” (Deuteronomy 6:6,7)

"Let all that you do be done with love." (1 Cor 16:14)

This means that you should give to others, your love and your help, all year round – not just at Christmastime. In celebrating Jesus' birth, remember that Jesus was all about Love and inclusiveness.

This goes beyond spin – it’s lying

Senate Republicans Filibuster Defense Spending Bill — Then Deny They Did It

The Republicans have shown that they will stoop to shameful and despicable tactics to stop the passage of health care reform. The Grand Obstructionist Party (the Party of No) is now a party of clowns who have forgone the work of legislating to stage circus stunts and then refuse to admit they are doing so. Late last night, while our troops were in harm’s way on two battlefields, the Republicans decided to deprive our soldiers of needed funding, by attempting to block passage of the military spending bill using a filibuster. Fortunately, all 60 Democratic votes were available to overcome the parliamentary assault on our troops by Republicans.

Why did the Republicans jeopardize vital funding for our troops in a time of war? It was a calculated stunt to delay the debate on health care reform – and nothing else matters to the obstructionist Republicans, not even the safety of our troops. If Democrats had pulled such a stunt during a time of war, they would have been attacked as treasonous.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) wasn’t even ashamed enough to lie about Republican reasons to block war funding. “I don’t want health care,” he said. Other GOP lawmakers pointed to the earmarks in the defense funding bill, but the results were the same. Every Republican Senator voted against the defense funding bill in a 63 to 33 vote, except for the two Senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins, and Sen. Hutchison from Texas. And even those three Republican lawmakers didn’t record their votes until all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had voted.

At this point in the health care reform debate, most people are well aware that the Republican strategy is to delay the vote as long as possible, even if it means dragging out debate on unrelated bills that GOP leaders support. That tactic was on display in October, when it took nearly a month to push through an extension of unemployment benefits that ultimately passed 98 to 0.

With their hypocrisy on full display, Republicans filibustered the $636.3 billion 2010 defense spending bill that every member of the party will eventually vote for. They did this as a way of delaying a return to the health care debate, which Democrats are trying to finish by Christmas. But on a 63-33 vote that at 1 a.m., the Senate finally mustered more than the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster and move to a final vote on the defense bill, scheduled for Saturday morning. Three Republicans joined with Democrats in voting to end the filibuster. Forcing that cloture vote is what is necessary to end a filibuster.

From Roll Call:
Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) accused Republicans of attempting to filibuster the Defense bill, which includes funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, in an effort to block work on the health care bill. Then, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (AZ) and other Republicans, however, sought to place the blame for the funding delay on the Democrats, accusing them of dragging their feet in bringing the bill to the floor and arguing that they [Republicans] are prepared to pass the bill.

“I find it rather curious that our colleague … is accusing Republicans of filibustering this Defense appropriations bill. Republicans don’t control the Senate or the House. The House just passed this bill Wednesday. Now, it could have been passed in October or September,” Kyl lied, adding that, “We always vote for the Defense appropriations bill.”

Moments later, Kyl refused an attempt to pass the defense bill immediately by unanimous consent. Then, a few hours later, he voted against bringing the defense bill to a final vote. These are the actions of a dishonest politician.

It is essential to pass the funding bill this week, because a Pentagon stopgap funding measure is due to expire at midnight Friday. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was furious at the Republican tactics. He sent an angry letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blasting the Republican stunt that would cause a “serious disruption” in the military’s ability to pay its troops during Christmas. “It is inconceivable to me that such a situation would be permitted to occur with U.S. forces actively deployed in combat,” Gates wrote.

The Republicans voting with Kyl should be forced to explain why they sought to kill a bill that provides troop funding in the middle of two wars. “They are prepared to jeopardize funding for troops at war,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.). “If Democrats did that, there would be cries of treason.” And yet GOP leaders have the audacity to argue that (1) they didn’t really filibuster the defense bill and (2) the Democrats are behind all the delays.

This isn’t spin – it’s lying. These Republicans are pulling dirty tricks (as usual) and then lying as they point their fingers at the Democrats and saying “they did it.”

Time to kill the bill

The Health Care Reform Bill at it now stands in the Senate is essentially a bill written by lobbyists for insurance companies, drug companies, and for-profit medical providers. With the exception of a few good provisions (increases in Medicaid eligibility, elimination of pre-existing conditions) most of what's left of health care "reform" not only isn't perfect, it is not even good. It has become a BAD BILL. The only argument left for supporting this bill is that Democrats needs to pass something, anything, called "health care reform" to prove they can accomplish something and not be punished by voters.

The best solution now is to let it go down in the Senate and then blame the Party of No and the Party of Joe. Kill the bill and then salvage its useful components through reconciliation (discussed at the end of this article).

Since Democrats campaigned on universal healthcare, voters may well be less likely to vote for them if they don't deliver. Unfortunately, this is a dilemma of Obama's and Congressional Democrat's own making. If Democrats pass a bad bill which forces people to buy unaffordable minimum insurance and then turns around and taxes employees with good insurance, voters will be even more likely to punish them.

The current Senate bill supposedly provides health care to the uninsured, but it is done by a mandate forcing them to buy unaffordable policies from for-profit private companies. If they do not buy the insurance, they will be fined by the IRS. This bill puts no limits on premiums, allows drug companies to charge whatever they want, and taxes the insurance policies of union workers and older Americans whose premiums are higher. This health care reform bill has become a massive taxpayer-financed subsidy to private insurance and drug companies.

Currently, health insurance policies for individuals average over $6,000 per year and policies for families average over $14,000 per year and are increasing about 10% annually. Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate.

By 2016, one of the most popular plans, a Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost a family more than $20,000 per year!

When the American people realize how much they will have to pay and how little they will get in return, they will blame the Democrats, with lots of encouragement from Republicans who will still claim this government subsidy to private businesses is "socialism". Rather than this being an incremental step, as liberals hope, it's more likely to prove to them that the government is forcing them to buy a defective product which they can't afford. Nobody is "getting covered" here. People are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write.

Senate leaders are all over Washington claiming they finally have a healthcare reform bill they can pass, as long as they remove the public option. After all, they say that even without a public option, the bill still "covers" 30 million more Americans. What they are actually talking about is something called the "individual mandate." That's a section of the law that requires every single American buy health insurance or break the law and face penalties and fines. So, the bill doesn't actually "cover" 30 million more Americans -- instead it makes them criminals if they don't buy insurance from the same companies that got us into this mess. ~Jim Dean, Democracy for America

There are more bad provisions in the bill:

• Nothing in the bill limits how much insurance companies can charge for premiums. While the bill prevents insurance companies from rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, they will almost surely use the excuse that they are taking on additional risk and raise premiums. In addition, they will probably use the 4 years between the time the legislation passes and the time the mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges take effect in 2014 to raise premiums at an even faster rate, just as banks jacked up credit card rates between the time Congress passed credit card reform and the time it takes effect. This will blow the budgets of the American people and the Federal government.

There are two ways to control premiums, none of which are in the bill. The first might have been a robust public option tied to Medicare rates. This would have given people an alternative to private insurance if the private insurers raised their rates too much. But first the Blue Dogs in the House killed the Medicare rate tie-in and then the Senate caved into Joe Lieberman and killed the public option entirely. The other way to control premiums would be through government price regulation. Most states, which require that car-owners carry liability insurance in exchange for the privilege of driving, have insurance rate regulation. No one has proposed that federal health insurance mandates include rate regulation. With no robust public option, no rate regulation, and over 30 million mandated new customers, insurance companies can charge whatever they want.

• The bill does not allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices or allow people to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. This would have saved tens of billions of dollars a year, which could have been used to make health care more affordable. The House bill still contains the Medicare drug negotiating provision, but it's been stripped from the Senate bill.

• The subsidies are paid for by charging a 40% excise tax on employer-paid health insurance policies costing more than $8500 for individuals or $23,000 for families. This is called a "Cadillac tax" but it's really a "Chevy tax". It would fall on approximately 19% of policies in its first year. Many union-negotiated policies cost more than this, especially for workers in high risk jobs. In addition many older people pay more than this in premiums. In order to avoid the tax, businesses will provide only basic policies which have higher deductibles and higher co-pays for the employees.

• The Senate has stripped out the language that would end the anti-trust exemption for the insurance companies. They are the only business – other than professional baseball – which is not subject to anti-trust laws. This means the Federal government can't do anything to prevent insurance companies from engaging in price fixing and dividing up markets.

• The Senate has stripped out provisions that prevent insurance companies from placing caps on the amount of benefits they pay out to individuals or families. This means that after paying premiums and co-pays, someone who gets really sick and needs expensive treatment like chemotherapy or organ transplants could end up exceeding the cap and having to pay the rest of their healthcare costs themselves, likely bankrupting them if they do not just walk away from getting the care they need (and then dying).

Democrats should introduce a series of individual bills and use reconciliation where possible. When reconciliation is not possible, then force Republicans and corporate Democrats to filibuster against individual popular provisions such as:

• Providing cost-savings reforms to Medicare. In particular, abolish the Medicare Advantage program which subsidizes private insurance companies to provide Medicare drug benefits at a 17% higher cost than the original government-run Medicare plan.

• Increasing Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the Federal Poverty Level, and subsidize the states for the extra cost.

• Letting Medicare use its negotiating power to lower drug costs and allow people to buy cheaper drugs in Canada.

• Revoking the insurance company's anti-trust exemption.

• No longer allowing insurance companies to deny pre-existing conditions, refuse to pay claims, put caps on total insurance amounts paid over a lifetime, or drop people who get sick.

• Letting uninsured individuals buy into the Federal Employee Health Plan available to government workers.

It would have been better if the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats had stood up to the insurance and drug companies, the Republicans, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman in the first place. They should have fought hard for a good bill. Under the circumstances, it is better to kill this bill.

Lieberman’s possible secret deal

In politics, the name of the game is ‘you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.’ Most members of Congress, except for the very rich or very safe, are for sale. So what does Joe Lieberman expect to receive in exchange for betraying the party who foolishly handed him their vice presidential nomination in 2000 and gave him the chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee? That question has been on the minds of just about every person in America who cares about passing healthcare reform. Everyone knows that if President Obama signs a bill requiring all Americans to purchase the expensive products from a handful of private insurance giants, it will indeed be his Waterloo.

There are a lot of theories out there as to why Lieberman is doing this: He is doing it for the attention, or to boost his own influence in shaping the final bill, or he is still mad at Democrats for defeating him in the primaries in 2006, or maybe he is just an egotistical jerk. (I’ll go with all of the above.) Newsweek says that Lieberman is just demonstrating how a person behaves when there has been no price to pay for disloyalty – and I agree. But if he cares little about what the citizens of Connecticut want or the people of America want, then that just leaves the insurance companies.

Richardson of the LA Times speculates: “Lieberman, who isn’t seeking office again, doesn’t care if most people in Connecticut want a public option. Nor does he care if most people in America want it. He doesn’t care if he shoots down healthcare reform entirely and destroys the best hope for reform in decades.”

Lieberman’s narcissism and vindictiveness toward the Democrats suggests that he is not running for re-election in 2012. What he is doing right now is called “securing his golden parachute.” If he rigs the game so that all Americans have to purchase insurance but insurance companies do not have any competition, he will have surpassed the industry’s wildest expectations. I am betting that he finds a cushy job with a Connecticut insurance giant when he is out of office.

Ron Williams, the CEO of Aetna, one of the many insurance companies headquartered in Lieberman’s home state, earned $24,300,112 in total compensation last year. Lieberman’s net worth, which is somewhere just under $2.5 million, makes him the 54th richest Senator out of 100. And since his last book deal was back in 2001, there is currently nothing that will give Lieberman a boost into a wealthy retirement.

When members of Congress leave office for good, those who aren’t Kennedys or Pelosis or Rockefellars do it hoping to finally make some real money. Why should Lieberman be any different? In supporting John McCain, Lieberman was probably hoping to become a high ranking cabinet member, giving him more access and potentially unlimited future income opportunities. Since that failed, Lieberman is likely hanging his hopes on the big insurance companies to give him a golden parachute.

So…now, we wait. If Lieberman has an insurance industry lobbying job offer on the table, he won’t be able to keep it secret forever. If this turns out to be true, then somehow he needs to pay a big personal price for trading the best interests of Americans for a cushy job with an insurance company.

Speaking of American exceptionalism…

In reconciling getting a Nobel Peace Prize just after calling for a military escalation in Afghanistan, President Obama boldly made the case for ‘just wars’ such as the one in Afghanistan. At the same time, he spoke of America’s exceptionalism by lauding the contributions the United States has made in promoting peace when we fought World War II, produced the Marshall Plan, helped with the creation of the U.N., and participate in nuclear disarmament.

Yet the gist of his acceptance speech was reconciling how war is sometimes necessary while at the same time mankind must strive for a better world:

“We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected,” he said at the end of the speech. “We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place… So let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.”

Obama addressed two criticisms from those who did not want him to receive the award:

1. He does not deserve the award:

“Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight,” he said. “I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.”

2. He is receiving a peace prize as his country fights two wars:

“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.”

Just as in his Berlin speech during the presidential campaign, Obama also argued how the United States has helped forge world peace:

“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans.”

Yet he also said -- in a swipe at Cheney and Bush -- that the U.S. must adhere to the standards that govern wars:

“America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.”

Obama then discussed three ways the world can build lasting peace:

1. Enact and enforce tough sanctions and penalties on countries Korea that violate rules and laws:

“But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system…. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia.”

2. Protect the inherent rights and dignity of all peoples:

“I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear.”

3. Promote economic security and opportunity:

“It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive.”

You would think that even the most ardent critic of the president's foreign policy would have a hard time picking apart President Obama’s Oslo speech. In fact, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Sarah Palin all lauded the speech because Obama went before the Nobel Committee of Peace to reconcile how war is sometimes necessary while, at the same time, mankind must strive for a peaceful world.

But if all that we notice in President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize Lecture is a justification of war, we will miss the crux of his thinking – that he called forth the hope of peace. President Obama spoke of a 21st century ‘just peace’, the middle ground between thinking of a ‘just war’ and pacifism – defining what a 'just peace' is and articulating how to go about providing such a peace.

President Obama absolutely believes in American Exceptionalism. It’s just not the perverted neo-con version that Dick Cheney extols.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch

Every now and then there comes along a person that 99.9 percent of the people wish would just go away. Dick Cheney is one of those people. Cheney has stepped up his attack on President Obama, telling news pundits that Obama's security strategy endangers American lives. The man is acting like he is possessed by the devil; but even the devil would be wary of cohabiting with the likes of what Cheney has become.

Just which Obama policies does he think are making us less safe? Escalating the war in Afghanistan that Cheney and Bush dithered around on for eight years? Or finishing the job in Iraq that he and Bush spent billions of dollars on and made a mess of? Do Cheney and his neo-con followers really think that Obama’s bowing to the Japanese king makes the United States less safe? That is pure poppycock. Although I believe the deep bow was an error – a slight ‘business bow’ or nod of the head would have been polite enough – it certainly did no great harm to our country. And, remember, Bush bowed to the Saudi king – held hands with him, too. Cheney did not throw a tantrum over that bow.

So who is this person who claims to know better than the rest of us?

It was Dick Cheney, former VP of the United States, and Bush who ignored intelligence briefings on Al Qaeda for months. Thousands of Americans were killed on their watch in an attack that could have been prevented and thousands more in a war in Iraq. After the nation was attacked, Cheney spent the remainder of his time as VP fearfully hiding in a bunker for weeks at a time, filled with paranoia from seeing enemies lurk in every corner. I can still see him in my mind’s eye shaking in his boots. Why? Cheney received five draft deferments during the Vietnam War. One time, when questioned about the deferments, he said that he had “other priorities” in the sixties rather than military service.

Although Cheney was not willing to put his own life on the line for his country, he was more than willing to send thousands of young Americans into war. Nearly 3,000 died at the World Trade Center due to Cheney’s and Bush’s eyes being off the ball. More than 4,000 American soldiers were killed, thousands of American soldiers were permanently maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died because of the Bush administration's incompetence and hawkish policies.

Cheney was more than willing to torture other human beings although regular FBI interrogation methods work well. The torture they advocated and pushed onto the CIA produced false information that was used to mislead America into an unwise, unjust, and unwarranted war. With such dirty hands, it seems to me that Cheney would be ashamed about of accusing anyone of endangering America or of defending the use of torture. The public records of Congressional testimony of military, CIA, and FBI personnel have given us evidence that torture actually endangered American security rather than protect. It did so by breeding more terrorists and producing false intelligence – which Mr. Cheney, along with President Bush, used to mislead America into invading Iraq.

Dick Cheney went on FOX’s Sean Hannity show this week to discuss his favorite topic, the "weakness" of President Barack Obama. Cheney said the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators in civilian court would give aid and comfort to the enemy: “I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible.” Cheney is saying that the act of giving KSM a civilian trial will make him more of a hero than Osama bin Laden is – all the while ignoring that the killing of thousands of Americans during Cheney’s watch made KSM a hero to extremists. This is cherry picking and complete nonsense.

What did do great harm to our country was Cheney and Bush allowing private contractors like Halliburton rake in billions in profits (from taxpayers’ money) doing what our armed services should be doing. And need I mention what that administration did to our economy by giving full reign to the financial sector? What about the billions of dollars that went into the pockets of the wealthy from tax cuts while running up the deficit at the same time with two wars? Stupid – very stupid. These policies bankrupted America.

Dick Cheney has warned that there is a “high probability” that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed. Of course there is a high probability that the United States will be attacked again – duh – and it won’t matter who is president. Remember, the U.S. was attacked on Clinton’s watch and on Bush’s watch. In fact, we lost more lives in the World Trade Center attack than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Facts have shown us that Cheney and Bush had the information about an imminent attack but chose to ignore it.

I guess Cheney thinks the failure to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora does not count as an act that made this country less safe. Gen. Stanley McChrystal testified to Congress this week that Al Qaeda would not be defeated until bin Laden is dead. Yet somehow, according to Cheney, putting KSM on trial will make him more important than the founder and continuing leader of Al Qaeda, whose death is essential to Al Qaeda's ultimate defeat according to the American military commander in Afghanistan?

Mr. Cheney is not a credible spokesman on issues of national security. He went over to the dark side years ago, turning into a Darth Vader – an unyielding presence who shoots first, asks questions later, and answers to no one, not even the president he supposedly served. Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, describes Dick Cheney as “amoral; he’s Machiavelli’s prince writ large.”

John Perry Barlow, the Wyoming native and Internet-privacy advocate who worked on Cheney’s first congressional campaign, is blunt in his description of him. According to Barlow, Cheney’s “dark intellect has become one of the most dangerous forces in the world… a global sociopath, a creature of enormous power and intellect combined with all the empathy of a HAL 9000 [the murderous computer in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey].”

The truth is that it was Mr. Cheney’s policies that did not keep us safe. Dick Cheney’s definition of American exceptionalism led to the arrogance and recklessness that turned attention from Afghanistan (where Al Qaeda was) and put emphasis on Iraq (where Al Qaeda did not exist at the time) – so if Obama doesn’t share his version of American exceptionalism, good.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were reactions against the neo-con version of American exceptionalism, with President Obama's election being the major plot point at which voters rejected it. Opposing the Iraq war and seeking to regain America's global standing were focal points in his campaign, and the American public agreed, despite the heavy fire Obama took from “conservatives” for, for instance, going to Germany to deliver a speech. In January 2009, just before Obama was inaugurated, 74 percent of U.S. adults (including 47 percent of Republicans) thought the Bush administration had damaged America's global standing, and 83 percent said it was important for Obama to work to improve it

Actually, I do not think that Cheney really believes President Obama is really making this country less safe. I think he is just trying to recast his legacy of hate and wrongheadedness. He knows the history books will show him as having a dark and nasty character. He knows that if the Obama administration is successful, history will view his own administration as unsuccessful and harmful. “Cheney’s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,” said Chas Freeman, who served under Bush’s father as ambassador to Saudi Arabia. “It was clear from the start that Bush required adult supervision – but it turns out Cheney has even worse instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your mistakes will come back and bite you on the ***.”

Cheney is a national embarrassment and permanent stain in our nation’s history. With each passing day, Cheney’s actions confirm that he is by far the worst and most damaging person to have held the second highest office in our country. I blame Cheney for what has happened to the United States. President Bush, who is not very bright, was just an ignorant puppet for Cheney, the puppet master. In fact if there is another attack, the blame could now be laid at Cheney’s feet for his unpatriotic, treacherous hate speech. His verbal attacks on President Obama go beyond expressing an opposing viewpoint. His words alone could invite another attack.

You are a mean one, Mr. Grinch. Go crawl back in your bunker and shut up.

It is Obama’s war now

The main rationale for staying in the war in Afghanistan has always been that if Kabul fell to the Taliban, al-Qaeda terrorists would once again move in and use the country as a safe haven from which to plan further attacks on the United States and its allies.

Why is Obama faced with escalating the eight-year-long conflict? Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks blew the chance to get Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora by not mobilizing U.S. forces, and relying on Afghans and Pakistanis to prevent Bin Laden’s escape. Obama has to send a surge of troops into the Afghanistan War because the job didn’t get done on the last watch.

“The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today’s protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” ~ the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry

This is a no win situation.

Holding at the current level of troops is the clearest recipe for war without end. The existing troops can probably hold the Taliban at bay and keep Afghanistan from falling apart, but little more. The war then becomes a contest of endurance that the American people will not tolerate.

If the U.S. pulled out entirely, it is a near certainty that the Taliban would march into Kabul and most other Afghan towns in a matter of weeks. True, the Taliban is not the same as al-Qaeda, but there is little doubt that they would provide sanctuary and alliance (as they did after the Soviets were ousted), and this would strengthen al-Qaeda in its struggle against Pakistan, the United States, and others. One might dispute the significance of this direct danger to the United States. Al-Qaeda can plan attacks on the U.S. from other places. It is naive to claim that leaving Afghanistan would have no effect.

Another problem with withdrawing is that it would signal victory for anti-American forces. If we left Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, especially after such a prolonged stay, what other embattled people would trust the United States and its allies to come in and protect them from insurgents? In order to withdraw from a stable nation, a surge must happen first. This is called “getting the job done”.

Fighting from a distance using drones to make air strikes may be appealing, but it neglects the reality that you need good intelligence to know who and where the bad guys are. To get good intelligence you need troops on the ground that are not only fighting the Taliban but are to cultivating and earning the local people's trust.

After Bush's horrible mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan, I am impressed that Obama's team seems to have given serious thought to the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimacy of the Karzai government, the lessons of the Soviet experience, how to pre-empt future demands for more troops, how to maximize leverage, and how to craft an exit strategy. According to some officials, after each of nine sessions, Obama was dissatisfied with the answers and hammered his advisors to bring back more detail the next time – on the state of the Afghan army, on the impact that various deployments would have on the state of the U.S. army, on a province-by-province breakdown of Afghan politics and security. All these questions directly, even crucially, affect calculations of the chances of success or failure. The president said he is now satisfied "there's not an important question out there that has not been asked and that we haven't answered to the best of our abilities," and, as a result of this process, he will feel "much more confident" about the orders he is issuing.

In a statement issued as Obama was announcing his new plan for Afghanistan, McChrystal said the president had provided him with a clear mission and sufficient resources. The general told the forces that the situation has improved with the commitment of additional troops, giving the mission better clarity, capacity, commitment and confidence. Meanwhile, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "As the U.S. increases its commitment, I am confident that the other allies, as well as our partners in the mission, will also make a substantial increase in their contribution."

I sure hope so – because it is time for the world to stop depending on America to police it.

The far right gives Obama no credit for upping the troop level and giving the troops a mission of better clarity, commitment, and confidence. Those on the far left are angry that we are not pulling out of Afghanistan immediately. But if Obama were to send far fewer troops than his commanders want – or pull out completely – and then we are once again attacked by terrorists, he would be blamed, whether appropriate or not. Regardless of politics, the United States cannot quit the war and leave Afghanistan to the Taliban – and by extension, Al Qaeda.

I am not in the least bit surprised that President Obama made the right decision. He has put the nation’s security before party and politics. Afghanistan was the country from which Al Qaeda trained and planned the 9-11 attack. This is the war that the Bush Administration should have given first priority – which is what Obama has said all along. Obama may have inherited this mismanaged eight-year-long war, but he has now fully shouldered the burden and taken ownership.

Come what may – for better or worse – the war in Afghanistan now belongs to President Obama.

Avoidable deaths

The swine flu may be mild in some people, but in many it is much worse that regular flu. In a number of people, the virus almost immediately attacks the lung tissue. People with underlying conditions such as asthma become severely ill and often need hospitalization to survive. People particularly at risk include those with chronic respiratory problems, including asthma, COPD, and cystic fibrosis. It also includes minorities, pregnant women, people with high blood pressure, and the morbidly obese.

Both my husband and I had what we believe to have been swine flu. Last month, he came home from school with an extremely runny nose and scratchy throat. By the next day, he had overwhelming fatigue and body aches. He ran a slight fever on the third day, but never much of one. I very suddenly came down with it on the fourth evening after my husband came home sick. (Earlier in the afternoon I had actually taken note of how unusually good I was feeling that day.) Once again the symptoms were a very runny nose (a waterfall), scratchy throat, and severe fatigue. Within 24 hours I was extremely short-winded and having to use my asthma rescue inhaler more than ever before. Because I was having so much trouble breathing, we went in to see the doctor – who after hearing my deep cough and listening to my lungs, did a chest x-ray and found me to have ACUTE PNEUMONIA. I had thought it was just really bad asthma – although a danger in and of itself. She said that if I had waited another day to see her, she would have had to put me in the hospital.

It is pneumonia that kills those who die from swine flu, not the flu itself.

It took two rounds – 28 days – of antibiotics to knock out the pneumonia. It took about that long to get over the fatigue. The fatigue was overwhelming – worse than the fatigue I get with my fibromyalgia. I was too tired to do anything – even watching television was too taxing, so I slept a lot. My husband was so worried about me that he did something he never does: he stayed home with me for several days. He wanted to be sure that I was out of danger. It’s now six weeks since I caught that bug, but I am still run down from having had it. And I am one of the lucky ones because I didn’t die. If I had not seen my doctor when I did, and stubbornly tried to control the breathing problem with my asthma meds, I could have died within just a few days.

That’s scary.

What I'm most alarmed about – and the reason for this blog entry – is my fear that current criteria for diagnosing H1N1 will miss significant numbers of infected and contagious people, thus contributing to rapid spread of the illness in the population. Namely, unlike other types of flu, a person can have flu and be walking around with no fever – thinking they only have a cold.

Public health authorities have known since April that a significant number of people – at least 30% – infected with H1N1 have NO FEVER.

The New York Times says, “The standard definition of influenza includes a fever.1 Yet an odd feature of the new virus is the lack of fever in a significant proportion of documented cases, even after some patients become seriously ill. In Chile, it was about half, in Mexico City about a third, according to Dr. Wenzel. Lack of fever has been noted by other observers in several Canadian and U.S. cases, too.

When fever is used as a primary screening measure, significant numbers of people will not be diagnosed and will therefore continue to spread swine flu germs in the general population. Yet, the USA Center for Disease Control has not revised its criteria for clinical evaluation. My understanding is that it is being left to individual school districts to create their own policies. At the present time, in our school district, screening for flu still includes fever as a criterion, even though the evidence shows this will result in a false negative assessment somewhere between 12% and 50% of the time!! If this is correct, it means that significant numbers of H1N1 cases will not be properly diagnosed.

Also, the rapid test that doctors use in their office for regular flu will not show up as having flu over half the time if you have H1N1. A study looking at the effectiveness of a rapid flu test in the first few weeks of the H1N1 pandemic in May found it detected less than half of the cases later confirmed by more sophisticated tests. In September, the CDC said doctors should not wait for laboratory confirmation of H1N1 because quick treatment is important, and because a negative rapid test does not rule out the flu. 2

Our doctor used the regular flu rapid test on both of us – with negative results. But they had to try twice to get a sample from me because I had taken an antihistamine which dried me out. My husband was basically over the flu and, of course, came up negative. So, because the tests results were negative and because we had no fever, the doctor decided that we did not have flu. I love my doctor – she is wonderful – but I think she missed this diagnosis completely. We are both convinced that we had swine flu. This infection was unlike any other we had ever experienced. And my very rapid decline into acute pneumonia was a huge red flag for swine flu. I have an underlying condition – asthma – so this virus went deep into my lung tissue very quickly!

Federal officials recently said that the number of children who have died from swine flu has jumped sharply as the virus continues to spread widely around the United States, striking mostly youngsters, teenagers, young adults, and pregnant women. While most of the children who have died had underlying health problems such as asthma, muscular dystrophy and cerebral palsy that made them particularly vulnerable, 20 to 30 percent were otherwise healthy. Between 46 and 88 children die every year from the seasonal flu, so the fact that more than that have already died from swine flu is disturbing. It is only October.

Because of the potentially deadly side of H1N1, the consequences of leaving a contagious student (without a fever) in the general school population can be very serious. Since older members of the population seem to have some residual resistance due to swine flu epidemics in the 1950's and 1960's, it is the school children who are one of the groups most at risk for swine flu. If children are not screened, diagnosed, and contagious students excluded from school, the virus will continue to spread like wildfire causing many unnecessary deaths before a protective vaccine arrives.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN242682220090924

Off with their heads!

Far right-wing activists across the nation are enraged by Senator Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) decision to work with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to craft comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation. In an op-ed published in Sunday’s New York Times, Graham and Kerry wrote about their agreement on a framework for mandatory global warming pollution reductions linked to government support for the nuclear, coal, and natural gas industries. The Natural Resource Defense Council’s Dan Lashof embraced the announcement as a game changer. Graham has recognized the threat of global warming and agreed to work with Democrats. Those “conservatives” who deny global warming see this as total abandonment.

Graham has said: “I think the planet is heating up. I think CO2 emissions are damaging the environment and this dependence on foreign oil is a natural disaster in the making. Let’s do something about it. I’d like to solve the problem – and if it’s on President Obama’s watch, it doesn’t bother me one bit if it makes the country better off.”

Although he votes with Republicans over 90% of the time, Graham’s willingness to drop blind partisanship for the chance to help shape climate legislation is making him the latest target of the extremist right, who drove Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) out of the Republican Party and demonized Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE). Yesterday, Graham held a town hall meeting in Greenville, South Carolina in which local teabaggers accused him of “going to bed with John Kerry” and making a “pact with the devil.” These accusations generated tremendous applause by the assembled crowd.

Unless you believe that global warming is a hoax, Lindsey Graham’s efforts are what Republican stalwarts and conservative activists should want from GOP officials – taking an already corporate-friendly pollution reduction system and using his support as leverage to establish conservative-leaning business interests – the nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas industries. But the teabaggers cannot see past their noses to understand this concept.

The mistake that many teabaggers are making is to believe that denial of the science of global warming should be a plank of the Republican Party. Like the anti-immigrant fervor and race-tinged fear and hatred of President Obama that drive many of these activists, the idea that climate change is just a big Al Gore conspiracy threatens to consign the Republican Party to irrelevance even as it hurts the nation and the world. These days, it is hard to tell whether there is a consistent GOP ideology, what with the belief espoused by the far-right wingnuts that Obama is simultaneously a communist, fascist, Marxist (same as communist – but they do not seem to know it), socialist, tool of corporations like GE and Goldman Sachs, tool of the United Nations, and other mutually irrational and inconsistent conspiracies.

Following the trend set by the Bush administration of “you’re either for us or against us,” the teabaggers are intent on driving any remaining Republican moderates and conservatives who are willing to negotiate with the Democrats out of the party – such as Senators Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins. They have dubbed officials who don’t vote with the ultra conservatives 100% of the time RINOs (Republican in name only).

Come 2012, the Republican Party will be relegated mostly to the Southern States, the nationwide teabaggers, and 99.9% White – with party views rivaling those espoused by the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland:
“Off with their heads!”

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

A president can set the nation’s tone, change attitudes, and move policy by making a speech or a statement. Presidential statements are picked up by the media and spread to the masses for consumption in such a way that the President essentially commands what the public pays attention to. In Obama's case this has been healthcare for all citizens, global warming, nuclear proliferation, race relations, and the United States relations with the Muslim world.

The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama this past Friday as a signal from the world that the United States is back in their good graces (well, most of the world) – and President Obama deserves full credit for that. Judging from the statement put out by the Nobel committee, the award is more for the promise of what Obama hopes to accomplish on global warming, nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, focusing on international diplomacy and cooperation, and for "capturing the world's attention and giving its people hope for a better future" than for what he has accomplished to date. Thorbjørn Jagland, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and a former prime minister of Norway, explained that Obama's early international diplomacy efforts is what helped him beat out other nominees. In other words, Obama’s agenda is the reason he has received this award.

“Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting,” the secretive five-member committee said. Obama's Nobel Prize win, as much as Conservatives want it to be, is no accident. It came from the Presidents risk-taking work in making daring speeches and visits to dangerous places to bring disparate people together.

Of course there was criticism from some people because Obama has not yet achieved his goals. The far-right wingnuts said the world rebuked Obama after he went to Copenhagen and suffered a “defeat” by unsuccessfully lobbying for Chicago to get the 2016 Olympic Games. In doing so, I think wingnuts actually influenced the Nobel committee’s decision. In giving this award to Obama, the Nobel committee is telling the rightwing forces to back off. This Nobel Peace Prize is a deliberate answer to the attitude of the wingnuts and their refusal to play nice. The Nobel committee is giving a hand up to Obama against his domestic adversaries and sending a message of encouragement to those Americans who put Obama in office.

The Nobel committee wants to encourage President Obama to continue pursuing his promise of change in world relations. Anyone who thinks that giving the Peace Prize as encouragement before anything has been accomplished is wrong. This is not unprecedented. The Nobel Committee gave South African Bishop Desmond Tutu the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his leadership of efforts to abolish apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid wasn't fully abolished in South Africa until 1994. The committee could have waited until after apartheid was abolished to say, "Well done!" But the point of the award was to help bring down apartheid by strengthening Bishop Tutu's efforts.

During the daily news update with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Friday, a reporter was questioning (in a ranting way) as to why Ronald Reagan didn't gain such an award. The answer is easy: Reagan's constant saber-rattling against the Soviet Union had many of us considering moving to Canada just to be out of the way of the possible results of his reckless abandon. Under President Reagan one had the uneasy feeling he was willing to push the red button and get us all blown to hell at any time. In the end, Reagan essentially broke the economic back of Russia, but he did so by causing America to pay the heavy price of being considered the World's new bully.

The contrast in America’s relations with the world while President Bush was in office is pretty stark on nuclear weapons reduction, Middle East peace, and global warming. The Bush administration dropped efforts to get the Senate to ratify the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol, a pact adopted by all other industrialized nations for curbing greenhouse gas emissions until 2012. It's a change that clearly appeals to the Nobel committee, although the committee is well aware that history is contingent and that Obama might fail. It knows very well that the same country that elected Obama also gave the world George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan – and that the far right faction can once again take over.

The Nobel award is a massive repudiation of several decades of Republican "Cowboy" diplomacy. It is a rebuke to the George W. Bush administration and his unilateralism – his “you are either with us or against us” attitude. Masculine virility and macho militarism was fused with the national symbols of the flag and the military. Europeans have seen this before. When we were engaged in our self-congratulating rally, the rest of the world was absolutely horrified. Bush-Chaney lead American foreign policy toward militarism and unilateralism, and he did so with Christian fundamentalist flair. President Obama, in less than ten months, has reset American foreign policy more toward multilateralism and a mature engagement with the world. He has a long way to go and things might not work out. But at least he is moving in the right direction.

President Obama, the third sitting U.S. president to receive the award, has been anointed an important leader on a world scale and is now someone who must be heard not just because he's President of The United States. The award says his actions signal a positive change for the world. The Nobel committee has set the table for Obama's emergence on the world stage as a difference-maker. For the GOP to oppose him now is to go against one of the most important leaders in the history of the free world.

But the GOP is not listening. The hatred and vitriolic response from the right shows they have lost ability to accept something good when it comes our way internationally. The GOP has become so brainwashed by the belligerent Bush-Cheney-Bolton unilateralism of the previous eight years, with its hatred for the world and its people, they are incapable of recognizing the simple truth that it is much better for America to have a president who is admired and respected in the world than one who is despised and feared. Everything Obama has achieved has been met with withering sarcasm and ridicule. He sends Bill Clinton to free American prisoners in North Korea and it turns out to be a stunning success that offers a breakthrough in relations with that weird and dangerous nation and the media greet the news with a collective yawn. His efforts to win the 2016 Olympics are fruitless but provide hours of joy for rightwing loudmouths who ridicule and demean his effort. He wins the Nobel Peace Prize and these same gasbags trash the Nobel Prize and the President.

What is being missed due to the deafening cacophony coming from the rightwing is that Americans should use this Nobel Prize as yet another Obama-inspired "teaching moment" to come to terms with just how much George W. Bush's foreign policy scared the h*ll out of the rest of the world (and many Americans, too). Instead, the GOP aims vitriol at the President for winning it. They do not care about the world’s perception that most Americans came to their senses when Obama was elected. They do not care that for the first time in years the world is looking toward the United States for global leadership. They preferred the childish bullying, the "you are either with us or against us" attitude, the rooster-like crowing about how great we are and if you don’t like it we’ll pound you into the ground like we do the opposing team at a football game – it made them feel good.

This is a symbolic prize – an international recognition that Obama is at least on the right track. There are times when what's good for America should trump partisan politics. President Obama was honored Friday because the world is hearing "America" and "peace" in the same sentence for the first time in years. That's good.

Congratulations, Mr. President. The world supports you in your endeavors – and so do a majority of Americans. Now comes the hard part: turning goodwill into concrete results that can heal the wounds of a very troubled world – and a very troubled nation. If you can do that you will deserve another Nobel Peace Prize.

Conditional patriotism

A former Bush aide advised Republicans to "resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch," but he was ignored. A surprising number of conservatives danced a jig over the fact that the United States will not host the Olympic summer games in 2016. As far as I can tell, their glee is driven entirely by their hatred of President Obama. They have apparently decided that Chicago is undeserving since it is Obama’s hometown.

Joe Scarborough, ex-Congressman (R-FL) and host of the Morning Joe talk show, is defending the President in an op-ed at Huffington Post:

"Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2016 Olympic Games. Chicago is a beautiful city that would have made a perfect backdrop for the Olympics. The President was right to fly to Copenhagen to try to land the games, not for the sake of his city, but for the good of his country. The fact President Obama failed makes me respect him more for taking the chance, and the fact many right-wing figures opposed the President's mission shows just how narrow-minded partisanship makes us all.

"For the better part of 20 years, a bitterness has infected our politics that has weakened our country. We Republicans spent eight years trying to delegitimize Bill Clinton. Democrats spent the next eight years doing the same to George W. Bush. Now that a Democrat is in the Oval Office again, it is the GOP who is trying to delegitimize a sitting president.

"...Fortunately, there are a growing number of Americans who believe we cannot continue going on this way. You and I may disagree on how the CIA handled terror suspects. But that does not mean that you are soft on terrorism anymore than it means that I hate the Constitution. You and I may have a different approach to Afghanistan. But just because you want to stay there another five years doesn't mean you are an imperialist. And if I believe a decade in that forsaken land is more than enough, that doesn't mean I'm soft on al Qaeda or the Taliban. It just means that we view the world differently.

"...Some of the rhetoric is dangerous. But what we saw from some conservative corners regarding the President's failed Olympics bid was just plain stupid. ...put me down as one conservative who is glad my president flew across the ocean to try to bring the 2016 Games to America.

"Nice try, President Obama... I know that's never an easy thing to do. Count me as one conservative who is disappointed that President Obama's hometown will not be hosting the 2012 Olympic Games."

I agree with Joe Scarborough. When the Weekly Standard's office erupts in cheers it's hard to miss the sadness of watching Americans delight in America's Olympic defeat.

I honestly can't think of the last time I've seen so many high profile Americans root so enthusiastically against their country. Rachel Slajda has some of the highlights from prominent right-wing voices, or low-lights, depending on one's perspective. And it's more than a little upsetting – it makes me angry:

“Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters,” wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled “Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!” The line was quickly removed, but ThinkProgress caught it in time and posted a screenshot.”

“Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. NO Obamalympics,” Michelle Malkin tweeted, following up with, “Game over on Obamalympics. Next up, Obamacare.”

“Hahahahaha,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson.

The Drudge Report announced the news like so: “WORLD REJECTS OBAMA:CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED.”

“The worst part of the Obama presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama,” echoed Rush Limbaugh.

As Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said, "Someone should remind [conservatives] which team they're really on." I remember a time when conservative Republicans claimed to have the high ground on patriotism. But now their patriotism is apparently conditional – it depends on who is in the Whitehouse.


Read more of what Scarborough wrote at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-scarborough/thank-you-mr-president_b_308022.html

Read more of what Slajda here: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php?ref=fpblg

Great “strategery”

Did anyone notice the cooperation between Russia and the U.S. during the UN meetings and G-20 summit last week?

This cooperation is due to President Obama scrapping the long-range missile defense system that was to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. Of course, the reaction from those on the far right was to immediately find Obama guilty of being “weak on defense”. These people refuse to admit that the long-range missile defense system does not really exist. The interceptor rockets don't work. After years of trials and billions of dollars of research, a prototype tested in Alaska still cannot tell real missiles from decoys. It cannot bring down missiles that change course in mid-flight. There is nothing developed that is capable of knocking out long-range ballistic missiles. The basic point is that the system was designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the stratosphere and low orbit. At this point it has never been successful beyond the drawing board.

Long-range missile defense had become an expensive fantasy.

The Czechs and the Poles at one time had hoped that the system would somehow protect them against Russian aggression. But polls now show that as many people were opposed to the missile defense plans as those who felt protected by it: In the Czech Republic, only 38 percent support the plan, and in Poland support slipped from 58 percent to 41 percent this year.

Obama abandoned long-range missile defense because it was a nearly trillion dollar boondoggle that owed more to make-believe than to on-the-ground realities. This missile defense program has caused nothing but problems for Washington, not only costing billions of dollars needed for more realistic defense programs, but it also has played a large part in Moscow's increased aggression toward its smaller neighbors just to show Washington who is boss in the region. More importantly, Russia would not use long-range missiles to hit countries that are just across the border; they would use short-range missiles. But what ultimately killed off long-range missile defense was the news that Iran has nothing like the kind of long-range, Soviet-style ballistic missiles that the system was supposed to stop.

Russia is not the problem. Iran is the problem.

Iran has nothing like the kind of long-range, Soviet-style ballistic missiles that the missile-defense system was supposed to stop. It's important to remember that plenty of short- and medium-range missiles exist in the Middle East (remember Patriots and Scuds?); no country in the Middle East actually possesses the kind of missiles that could reach the United States, or even Northern Europe.

It makes a world of sense that instead of continuing to spend billions more on a Star Wars system based out of Poland (a piece of technology that is still many years away from reality), Obama is going to fund smaller missile-defense systems designed to knock out rockets during the boost, or takeoff phase, when the rocket is much easier to hit. That's best done from somewhere much closer to the problem than Poland – from Kurdistan or Kuwait.

This is realistic national defense for right now – in this year. It will keep the U.S. and its allies much safer. So, why are the conservatives wailing about scrapping Star Wars? A missile-defense system is a great symbol of power, even when it doesn’t really exist. It is about crowing and beating the nation’s collective chest. (Remember the WMDs that Saddam was supposed to have? It made Saddam look too powerful – scaring everyone.)

Obama put relations with Russia on a firmer footing by his decision to revamp a missile-defense system. If it paid us extra dividends in helping to win Russian support for tougher sanctions against Iran, then the process of tossing out a theoretical weapon system that does not work that supposedly protected us from a threat that does not exist was the right move.

I believe Obama made this move because he knew what was going on in Iran. That is why he is surrounding Iran with missiles and, at the same time, using his gift of speech and great diplomacy to bring the nations of the world over to the United States' point of view. If this ever turns into a military strike, he will have most of the nations standing with us.

Chalk this up as great “strategery”. Way to go, Mr. President!


Note: For those who do not remember, "strategery" was one of President Bush's mangled words. He was trying to say "strategy".

Help defeat Joe Wilson

Let’s help defeat the man who yelled “You Lie!” at the President. No President has ever been treated so rudely during a speech to a joint session of Congress. No one has ever directly yelled a character-assassinating word at any President during a speech to Congress.

Wilson not only showed his true colors, he has been declared a hero by the rightwing nuts. Many have admitted that they were thinking what Wilson shouted out. Yet, they are the ones who have it wrong. President Obama is telling the truth.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) finds himself vulnerable for re-election in the wake of his "You lie!" outburst during President Obama's address to Congress, according to the latest numbers from Public Policy Polling. Since his outburst, Rep. Wilson (R-S.C.) now trails challenger Rob Miller 44 to 43 percent in the poll.

62% of voters in his district say they disapprove of Wilson's actions while just 29% think they were okay. Overall, 49% of voters say that Wednesday's incident made them less likely to vote for Wilson in the future, while 35% said it made them more likely to do so.

"In a matter of seconds Joe Wilson turned himself from a safe incumbent into one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the country for 2010," said Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling.

On Thursday morning, Miller's Web site was pointing to a donation page on ActBlue , which bills itself as the "online clearing house for Democratic action." On the DailyKos, Rob Miller is thanking people for giving over $1 million in small contributions--in less than 48 hours.

If you want to help defeat Joe Wilson and put Rob Miller, an Iraq veteran and Democrat, in his seat, then go here:

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/entity/19079

A Christian Statement on Health Care Reform

In the face of negative ads, partisan rhetoric, and a news cycle filled with fear and half-truths about health care reform, Christians must affirm that we believe in: quality and affordable access to life-giving services for all people.

As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.

I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).

I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ's ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God's new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.

I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).

I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).

I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).

I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and "mourning and crying and pain will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.

I believe health care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).

From Sojourner’s website
http://go.sojo.net/campaign/health_care

The earth is flat

Yesterday, the House voted 378-0 to pass a resolution honoring Hawaii on its 50th anniversary of statehood and also as the birthplace of President Obama. The resolution was written by Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) in order to both honor his state and get the Birthers in the House, including Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), on the record as to whether or not they really believe that the president was born somewhere else -- such as Kenya, Indonesia, or wherever. All of the co-sponsors of Mr. Posey's bill (that requires the presidential candidates to provide proof of citizenship) were put on the spot. They had to put into the official record whether or not they believed Obama was a citizen of the United States. In a nod to sanity they voted for the resolution.

So, that should put an end to all this Birther nonsense, right?

Not hardly. Once conspiracy theorists get hold of something, they never let it go. The more proof you provide, the more they believe the conspiracy: your proof is just proof of the depth of the conspiracy. In this particular case, the Birthers are incapable of accepting the idea that a black man with a foreign sounding name could possibly be elected president, so they come up with this thoroughly ridiculous plot. That's why White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn't even try to answer the question put to him about the Birther movement; no matter what he said, it would just be further proof of the vast conspiracy.

Many GOP Congresspersons are afraid of alienating some of their staunchest supporters who hate Obama and buy into this crap, so they do this little misleading dance of "Well, there are still questions, y'know." No, there aren't any questions, unless you are completely nuts!

The Birthers may have reached and passed their peak thanks to the scrutiny, the derisive laughter, and the backlash from the overkill done by the wingnuts in the media (like Lou Dobbs). Mr. Dobbs' efforts to keep raising questions about the president's legitimacy took the movement out from the shadows of rightwing chain e-mails and rumor mongering onto the cable systems of America where everybody could see what a steaming pile of cowpie it was. So rather than getting a large majority of the country on the Birther bandwagon, Mr. Dobbs provoked the ire of people on both the left and the right (even Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh said he was wrong) and reduced himself to little more than a target for mockery.

The Birther movement will never go away entirely, but at least it's been reduced to a few crazies who are doing little more than provide entertainment as it continues to hang out there like the theory that the earth is really flat.

(Yes, there are crazies out there who believe we live on a flat earth!)

Taking a break

I had intended to take a summer break when my husband ended the school year, but I am going to start my break early.

My fibromyalgia has come out of remission and is wreaking havoc. It is hard to concentrate on my writing due to the pain.

I hope you all have a wonderful summer.

The power of persuasion

President Obama entered the arena to thunderous applause and a standing ovation from many in the crowd of over 12,000, while just fewer than 300 anti-abortion protestors (most were not connected with the university) were outside the gates of the grounds of Notre Dame. Only about two dozen students refused to attend their graduation ceremony.

Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He does not. They want to reduce religious faith to a narrow set of issues. He refuses to join them. They often see theological arguments as leading to an arrogant certainty. In his Notre Dame speech he opted for humility.

The thunderous and repeated applause that greeted Obama and the Rev. John I. Jenkins, Notre Dame's president who took enormous grief for inviting him to speak, stood as a rebuke to those who said the president should not have been invited. Jenkins said, "As we serve our country, we will be motivated by faith, but we cannot appeal only to faith. We must also engage in a dialogue that appeals to reason that all can accept" and do so "with love and a generous spirit."

The president courageously ceded no ground. He said that those on each side of the debate "can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions." He did all this without skirting the abortion question and without flinching from the controversy surrounding his visit there.

"Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it – indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory – the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable." Then he encouraged the two sides to find common ground: "Let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term."

His discussion of faith tells us much about his own Christian beliefs and about his approach toward those who believe differently: "That which unites Americans is more essential that that which divides us. Our essential common values should allow us to reach compromise where we can and remain at least civil as we discuss what cannot be compromised. True faith, true respect for religion, requires actions that make this world a better place."

He spoke of doubt in Christian faith:

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse. But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

"This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds."

I found Obama’s speech to be highly Christian in nature. Here are some more highlights:

A litany of sins:

"Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism, in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times."

The transformational role of good works in the realm of faith:

"And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."

Defining common values:

"For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It is no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the golden rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this earth…

"Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

A call for action:

"But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well-lived. Remember that in the end, we are all fishermen.

"If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union…"

In the book Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, with its premise that the most important power of the president is the power to persuade, Richard Neustadt wrote: "Persuasive power, thus defined, amounts to more than charm or reasoned argument. These have their uses for a President, but these are not the whole of his resources. For the individuals he would induce to do what he wants done on their own responsibility will need or fear some acts by him on his responsibility. If they share his authority, he has some share in theirs. Presidential "powers" may be inconclusive when a President commands, but always remain relevant as he persuades."

George W. Bush seemed to think that persuasion emerges from the exercise of power. But from Obama's first two commencement speeches, in fact from his body of speeches as president, it looks like he believes that power is through persuasion.

It was hard to square the messages given by Obama and Jenkins with the rage directed toward them by their detractors. Yet in raising the stakes entailed in Obama's visit, the critics did the president a great service. By facing their arguments head-on and by demonstrating his attentiveness to Catholic concerns, Obama showed great courage and helped to strengthen moderate and liberal forces inside the church itself. He also struck a forceful blow against those who would keep the nation mired in culture-war politics without end.

Obama's opponents on the ultra-right placed a huge bet on his Notre Dame visit. In their delusion they may think they won, but they lost.

Neither doormat nor bully

During and following President Obama's trip to Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America, including a meeting of the Group of 20 and the NATO summit, ultra right-wing pundits and media (such as Fox News) have twisted Obama’s words and accused him of turning the trip into an "apology tour," smearing the president with half truths and lies – and calling him the "Apologizer in Chief." These right-wing pundits have also accused Obama of "running down his own country." They claimed that his remarks made overseas are indicative of how "liberals enjoy apologizing for America."

As CNN anchor Tony Harris put it during the April 7 edition of CNN Newsroom: "Day after day, country after country, the president tried to repair America's strained relationships with key allies, but his critics say his gestures of reconciliation amounted to apology after apology after apology."

Many of these attacks have been based on distortions of Obama's remarks. For instance, one statement that right-wingers have targeted is the following remark Obama made during an April 3 speech in Strasbourg, France: "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." (This is a very true statement.) Ultra right-wing pundits such as Sean Hannity and Nicolle Wallace claimed the remark was an example of Obama "blaming America first," when, in fact, Obama was criticizing both American and European attitudes toward each other, and also spoke of "the good that America so often does in the world."

Right-wingers love to cherry-pick and then twist everything Obama says into something negative that he did not say nor mean. Then they magnify their twisted statement while leaving out the many good things that he said. Why do they do this? They do this out of pure hate for Obama – because he is a Democrat. But even worse, many right-wingers hate him because he is a black Democrat.

Hannity has falsely claimed that Obama "seemingly apologized for our engagement in the war on terror" when Obama stated during an April 6 speech before the Turkish parliament that "the United States is not ... at war with Islam." However, in those same remarks, Obama also stated that "Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism" and that "we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda." (These words sound very much like statements Bush made for eight years, but that fact is ignored by the right-wingers.)

Similarly, several Fox News pundits criticized Obama's comment that "we do not consider ourselves a [purely] Christian nation," which he made during an April 6 press availability with the president of Turkey. They refuse to admit that Obama was making a broader point about the ecumenical nature of our country – that the United States has citizens of many different religions.

The Obama administration has just released memos showing that the Bush-Cheney gang authorized torture. Before this event, everyone had already figured out that America was involved in torturing others. It is only right that we take responsibility for our transgressions, including the global recession, poor bank regulation, committing inhumane acts against others, and so forth. America is responsible for much more than President Obama has supposedly “apologized” for to date.

Obama is acknowledging to the world what it already knows -- the U.S. made some terrible mistakes under the "leadership" of George Bush. Only arrogant, self-centered Americans would refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Anyone who has actually given thought about this issue would know that Obama is improving perceptions of America. Oh yeah, I forgot, those who watch Fox News are incapable of thinking. They just open up their heads and allow Fox to pour in thoughts for them with half truths, distortions, and lies. These people never actually listen to President Obama's speeches; they just allow Fox News to tell them the twisted and lying version of what he said.

In the book Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten the premise is play well with others, including neighbors. If you do something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then you should apologize and then get on with the greater good! Let’s restate that: If America does something wrong, arrogant, and bullheaded, then we should apologize (at least acknowledge it) and then get on with the greater good!

Obama has not acted as a kiss-a** apologist, but he has acknowledged to the world some of America’s mistakes. That is the right thing to do. He is trying to mend the fences so that the U.S. can start acting like a partner in the world community. That does not mean we lie down and become the world’s doormat. It does mean that we are no longer the bully on the block.

She’s a decoy

Let’s assume that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew back in 2002 that the CIA was performing waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation tactics upon terror suspects. Let’s assume Representative Pelosi said nothing about it for years. This makes her a hypocrite, a coward (as were many Democrats back then), and possibly a liar – which is not exactly rare in Washington (on both sides of the aisle).

The result is that it only reduces her power on this particular subject. It paints her as part of the problem and not part of the solution, which is the kinder way of saying what many GOP leaders were saying about Pelosi as the week wore on.

But it also brings to light that the Bush administration had been torturing people from the get-go.

Pelosi’s silence over the last few years does not exonerate the men who drafted the torture memos and the men and women who authorized them to do so. The Bush administration’s degree of culpability for torturing prisoners is an order of much greater magnitude. Pelosi did not conjure up the dangerous legal theories used by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Alberto Gonzales, and Steven Bradbury to justify torture. She didn’t decide to call off FBI interrogators who were being successful using normal methods and replace them with CIA operatives and contractors who were willing to torture. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.

Pelosi was not the one who allowed the men who wrote or authorized those memos to remain in their positions or gain promotions in the Bush Administration. She was not the one who publicly labeled the soldier guards at Abu Ghraib as “rogues and renegades” even though they were just following orders. Cheney and Rumsfeld were the ones who did that.

Philip D. Zelikow, counselor to Condoleezza Rice when she was Secretary of State, made this statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Justice Department's torture memos, "The U.S. government over the past seven years adopted an unprecedented program in American history of cruelly calculated, dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure in which a number of officials and members of Congress and staffers of both parties played a part . . . Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it and learn from it."

There are several issues that make this fight important beyond the question of Ms. Pelosi's truthfulness and reputation – and they could be addressed by an independent commission. Is the intelligence oversight system functioning as it should? Are leaders of the intelligence committees being appropriately informed? Should information be shared more broadly? With the constraints of classified information and pledges of secrecy, is there any way that lawmakers can express opposition or concern? Reforms may be needed which only an independent commission could discern. It would help to educate us all about the routine interaction between parties on sensitive intelligence matters.

Pelosi's claims that she did not learn in 2002 of waterboarding being used by the CIA have been corroborated by Senator Bob Graham. She is not my heroine (I wish someone else was Speaker) but it is quite a stretch to say she's lying to cover her butt because she doesn't need to cover her butt. The accusations from the GOP and the media that she’s complicit are a distraction from the real issue. Many in the Bush administration did horribly worse. In using torture they ignored our constitution, twisting the meaning behind our national laws, and have yet to be held to account. Pelosi was not the tail wagging the dog. The Democrats had no power back then. None…notta…zilch.

Pelosi is being used by the Republicans as a decoy. She is not the important issue. If you are following the Republican lead and going after Pelosi, then you are doing just what the Republicans want you to do – taking your eyes off the ball. “The ball” is the fact that torture was authorized and used by Bush-Cheney to justify the Iraq war.

Bad dynamic for GOP

Prominent GOP candidates are turning down offers to run against vulnerable Democrats in Congressional elections. Even though they could probably win the election in their particular districts, they do not want to serve in an ever-shrinking minority party that has little power in the Senate and no power in the House.

Last week, former Gov. Tom Ridge (R-PA) announced that he will not run for the Senate next year against new Democrat Arlen Specter:

“I am enormously grateful for the confidence my party expressed in me, the encouragement and kindness of my fellow citizens in Pennsylvania and the valuable counsel I received from so many of my party colleagues. The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach. However, this process also impressed upon me how fortunate I am to have so many friends who volunteered to support my journey if I chose to take it and continue to offer their support after I conveyed to them this morning how I believe I can best serve my commonwealth, my party and my country.”

The decision dramatically increases the chances that Democrats will hold that newly-acquired seat since no other potential GOP candidate was anywhere close to Ridge's stature. Arlen Specter will likely retain the seat.

Tom Ridge was just the latest in a string of prominent Republican recruits to decline runs for the Senate and House next year. Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL) has declined a bid for President Obama's old Senate seat. Like Ridge, Kirk was clearly the GOP's best candidate in the state. Now, it seems highly unlikely that the GOP will wrest control of the seat away from the Democratic nominee (which will probably not be the current 'junior Senator from Illinois' Roland Burris).

In April, two other top Republicans opted out on House bids against freshmen Democrats. First, Florida GOP chair Jim Greer (R) declined to take on freshman Representative Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) in Florida's 24th Congressional District. Second, former Representative Thelma Drake (R-VA) declined a rematch against freshman Representative Glenn Nye (D-VA). Both were huge losses for the National Republican Congressional Committee which had hoped to narrow the Democrats 79-seat majority in the Congressional House of Representatives.

Top GOP recruits who could run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) have already declined to run, as did former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) for the open Republican-held Senate seat in Florida. Florida Governor Charlie Crist (R) has indicated an interest in running for that seat, but Crist is a moderate and will refuse to walk lock-step with an obstinate, oppositional Congressional minority - so he may not win the primary against a more right-wing conservative who, in turn, will likely lose against a Democrat. Bill Konopnicki (R-AZ) actually came out and said he isn't interested in serving in Congress unless Republicans could take back the majority in the 2010 elections.

As a result of poor recruiting, Republican numbers will likely continue to be decimated in the Senate and House. This creates a situation in 2012 and beyond in which their desired outcome of growing the party and regaining their power will be impossible to attain.

This is a very, very bad dynamic for the GOP indeed.

Why is this happening? Why is the GOP continuing to shrink? See my answer in the post just below.

Lunatics running the asylum

If Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, and Mitt Romney think that by setting aside the hot button issues, their “Conversation with America” will cause the Republican Party to attract a larger membership, they are fooling themselves. The majority of the GOP has moved much further to the right, choosing to circle the ideological wagons to make the Republican Party pure, refusing to set aside cultural issues, and continuing to spew hate for all who think differently than they do – which means no room for moderates or independents. Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Newt Gingrich continue to pine for the “good old days” - defending a string of failed policies that they advocated for decades.

And then there are the crazies:

The newest star of the ‘conservative’ media, Glenn Beck, is whipping the crazies into a frenzy. Since moving his show from CNN to Fox, Beck has turned up the volume and offered a combination of ignorance, manic fear-mongering and weepy nationalism. His goal is to give credence to every conspiracy theory about Obama and the Democrats that comes down the road. He has become a Pied Piper of far-right lunatics, luring out resentful and paranoid right-wingers with his nightly diatribe of fear and hate.

When not telling people that Obama is going to take away their guns (a lie), or claiming that Obama is planning to move to one world currency (another lie), or touting books written by John Birch Society nutcases, Beck spreads the lie that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is secretly constructing concentration camps into which Americans will be herded and perhaps exterminated, once martial law has been declared. During one particularly loony performance, Beck claimed that because of President Obama's policies, America is becoming a fascist dictatorship (while showing videos of Nazis marching in the background). Of course he provided no evidence for his claim, but he put on a heck of a show while saying it. When he was called out on his lies, Beck backed off and admitted it was all bogus – that he was saying it all just in fun. If Obama really was moving the nation towards fascism, then how is a critic like Glenn Beck still on the air? What makes Beck, and Fox News, so evil is that uninformed people believe this stuff. People do not understand that entertainment news is not about news – it is all about making money.

In response to warnings by Glenn Beck about America’s descent into fascism, Jon Stewart had the best response:

“I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you, because I've been there. A few times. In fact, one of them was a bit of a nail-biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes for the wealthy, remove government's oversight capability, and invade a country that you thought should not be invaded, but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See, now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like ___! (Expletive removed.)

One thing that is so remarkable about far-to-the-right-wingers like Beck is that they are throwing tantrums about the stimulus bill and raising taxes on the extremely wealthy (by just 3%) but do not care about warrantless wiretapping of American citizens or the lack of healthcare for over 44 million Americans or schools that are crumbling.

Have these discontents looked at their most recent paycheck? Even though their taxes have just recently dropped, these folks still feel oppressed by government. I believe their frustration really comes from the fact that when they cried "socialism" most Americans did not seem to care. Now they are screaming "fascism" in the hope that it will pull Obama down, and still their words do not cause a majority of citizens to rise up. Why is this? In a poll released in April, Rasmussen Reports found that just 53 percent of Americans say that capitalism is better than socialism (with 20 percent choosing socialism and 27 percent unsure). Young adults prefer socialism by 33 percent with 30 percent undecided. Most voters do not think that a little socialism (as in Medicare and Social Security) is a bad thing.

In the meantime, charges from ultra right-wing talking heads that Obama is a socialist or even a fascist (Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck) is not hurting his job approval ratings which are steadily above 60 percent. These right-wingers are angry and frustrated that few people are listening. Democracy can be very frustrating when you lose.

Besides Glenn Beck, there are more right-wingers going off their rockers, seeing imaginary communists and fascists behind every tree:

*Michelle Bachman (R-MN), an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, went on the radio to claim that the Obama administration is planning to herd young people into re-education camps.

*Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) whipped up an April 15 Austin, Texas tea party crowd by talking about the blood of tyrants.

*Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) said, "I think the people of Illinois are ready to shoot anyone who is going to raise taxes ..." (He was referring to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn proposal to raise the state tax rate to 4.5 percent from 3 percent, coupled with an increase in the personal deduction.)

*Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, strongly implied that the Lone Star State is considering seceding from the Union because of Washington's ‘oppressive’ stimulus spending. Yet, just this week he asked the federal government for millions to help combat their swine flu outbreak.

*Spencer Bachus (R-AL), in confusing socialism with communism, said, "Some of the men and women I work with in Congress are socialists." When pressed by a reporter, Bachus said there were 17 "socialists" in Congress, but when asked for specifics, Bachus named only one legislator – Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described "democratic socialist," whose vision of a socialist ‘safety net’ is more like Stockholm (Sweden) than Moscow (Russia). It allows for wealth but also cares for the down-trodden.

*Rush Limbaugh (Republican pundit) said, “I hope he (President Obama) fails.” It would be one thing if Republicans were simply arguing intelligently that Obama's stimulus plan and budget will fail. That would mirror how Democrats felt about the Iraq war – a doomed mission that would cost far too many human lives for the lie of WMDs. Contrary to what these loonies are saying, Democrats never said they wished for Bush to fail; they just thought he would. Wishing for President Obama to fail is the mark of an ideologue with blinders on – making his ideas more important than the people of this nation.

These right-wing nuts do not seem to understand that the more extreme and shrill their hateful rhetoric grows – the more they scream “fascism” – the less convincing they become to the broader public. They are becoming more ridiculous in the public eye with every extreme word shouted and every stupid stunt pulled. They are causing the ranks of the Republican Party to be decimated at a time when our country could use a viable opposition party with intelligent arguments.

Having Democrats in control of the White House and Congress seems to have caused the ultra right-wingers to lose their minds. Actually, I have been noticing the loony tunes for years, but their screaming has become excruciatingly loud since the election, causing a majority of the general public to finally realize just how crazy, self-centered, and immoral these GOP leaders are.

The Republican tent will remain small as long as the far-right-wing lunatics are running the asylum.