NTY

">

So apparently the New York Times has slimmed Cindy McCain in a front page article. Too bad. Does anyone know if this isn't a kind of reverse mulligan? That is the paper wants to be attacked by the faithful because it is really supporting more of the McSame?

You know if the paper wanted to dig on McCain, couldn't they have started flogging his very real, very recent, very pleasant relationships with Liddy and North? One guy who committed burglary to help a Republican President get relected and the other guy who lied to Congress and got off on a technicality. No that would be too much like real reporting about a real issue. Or perhaps just about hypocrisy, but non-the-less something that does mean something.

Palin

Welllllllllllllll now. Who'd a thunk it?

I suspect that that was the best he could do. And don't fool yourself it is going to be seen as brilliant. I myself am one of those who buys into Mencken's theory that no one ever went broke underestimating the American public.

She's a relatively young good looking woman with a disabled child. What more does McCain need? I'm sure that she can talk and that she can debate with a reasonable amount of skill. Any politician can. At that point the MSM will simply run with how really special she is and isn't she so brave to be out there with that little one not well. Her looks ain't gonna hurt either.

Like Chaney and Bush the MSM will simply ignore the really reactionary aspects of her politics. Any mistakes or gaffs she makes will last half a news cycle, unlike anything the Democrats do. Of course, she will be greatly helped by the Democrats and Obama who have had an awful summer. They seem to be taking their instructions from "Losers B Us" advising Democrats ever since Humphrey.

Georgia On My Mind

The real world has had the temerity to force itself onto me and has forced me to actually work and think today. Yet another pervert, and a client who managed to delay his case so long before he hired me that we may not be able to put on any witnesses.

At any rate I've been thinking about the Russian invasion of Georgia and our part in the whole thing and what if anything we should do. I would guess that we should express our shock and outrage, but what else is there to do.

I mean let's face it Bush/Chaney and the neocons have our army stuck in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan. We have no army to make Russia do anything. So we can't. But even supposing we were not in these two countries what would we do? Nothing I would expect since we would have to push mighty hard to get the Russians out of Georgia. I do not expect that we would go to World War III (or IV or whatever) over it. So what could we do short of going to war except stamp our feet and refuse to ----- what trade with them? Sell them weapons? Vacation on the Black Sea?

The other interesting part of this is that it appears as though Georgia (in addition to underestimating Russia's resolve) over estimated our support. I wonder what we have been telling these people? "Back us and we'll back you when push comes to shove?"

Which brings me to our current crop of politicians. McCain rattles his saber (as always). I'm really not sure what Obama is doing. Flip flopping again? Well at least he is being portrayed as flip flopping. But what does the guy who has the power to do something do? He watches some beech volley ball. I would have to argue if the people who run the Republican party do think it's important enough to leave the Olympics why should the ones who just want the office, but don'[t yet have it do anything.

New Boss

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss.

Trolls and the GI Bill

Well I was reduced to spluttering after repeated responses to a troll on Hullabaloo concerning Webb's GI Bill.


The incredibly bland response by the troll continued to be that really people in the military got paid for their time, so they really don't need all that largess from the poor government. He also went off (or maybe it was someone else) on whether volunteers should get the money as opposed to draftees, and whether or not you should get benefits if you were not in combat.


He was called a libertarian by several of the posters. I'm not sure that he isn't just a jerk.


Now that I've calmed down somewhat I wonder what kind of game he was really playing. It was clear that he was never going to serve in the military so everything he argued was simply thought games. He clearly didn't have enough of a felling of empathy for anyone outside his close circle.


All though I am not particularly found of Kipling one is reminded of his "Tommy."


As far as the current bill? McCain and Bush are amazing (as are apparently 41 other senators). In the middle of two wars (let us not forget Afghanistan) they are against giving benefits to the people who are actually fighting those wars. What is even more shocking is that they have been getting away with it. Their reasoning is that people won't be forced to stay in the military if they are provided benefits that more or less equal those given to soldiers during the Vietnam era. The phrase indentured servitude comes to mind.


From what I can see the bill doesn't provide all the original bill provided for WWII vets. That is amazing when you think about it. The original GI Bill benefited the entire country in ways that went way beyond the benefits given to the service men directly. Teachers, builders, people who worked in factories and the people who owned the factories were all benefited by the money spent by the returning vets. How little we want to give now. How short sighted we are now.


Of course the other possibility is that McCain/Bush know exactly what they are doing and they are simply lying to the rubes who follow them. In order to maintain an aggressive empire we have to maintain a large military it is better to pay them less and to force them to stay in. It appears cheaper to those who now rule us. The rulers of today do not have the foresight that those of yesteryear did.


If the bill falls just one or two votes short of the super majority in the senate, do you think that Reid will force a real filibuster? Oh come on let's get real shall we. Say when did the definition of liberal include "give up?"

Repudiate the truth

Once again the right wing throws a fit and a democratic politician repudiates the truth. Those who support Obama tell the truth and the right demands that Obama repudiate them. He does so, so that I'm sure: "Move on to more important things."

Crap those are the important things. Digby was right: the purpose of these right wing "hissy fits" are to limit the discussion and/or to frame the issues so they they control the debate and limit what can be argued.

The Media

Once again Digby hits it at least close to on the head. But she seems to believe that the media is unaware of how deeply they are in the bag.

I now suspect that they have always been aware of what they do. They are part of the ruling class. And they are intent on keeping the DFHs out. What they may not be aware of is that they are allowed to remain a part of that class only as long as they parrot the right line (right being used in all senses). They of course are well rewarded for what they do.

To see how independent the media is, the real ruling class permits a few Jon Stewarts and Keith Olbermans to broadcast. They are but a speed bump on the propaganda highway. So far blogs have come in under the radar, but I do not believe that will continue for long. No one in the ruling class,no matter which branch of the conservative ruling party (republicans or democrats) holds power at the time, want the kind of harsh, fact based criticism the blogs provide.

I can only imagine how envious those former rulers of the Soviet Union must be to see our national and local versions of Pravda effortlessly spout the party line. Evan more imagine how envious they must be to see how eagerly the average citizen laps it all up.

Politics and the Election -- again

We were waiting for a client of mine to show up for his trial this morning (he apparently decided that he would rather be else where). Actually, I wouldn't mind that so much, but I just wish that they would consider that if they really do want to run, it doesn't do them much good to run to the next town over. Especially, if they then get drunk at the only local bar and then get into a fight. You'd be amazed at the number of people who do just that.

Well at any rate the prosecutor was going on and on about McCain's "experience" (scare quotes). My response was: "What experience?" His was the length of time he (McCain) has been a senator.

My response was that no matter how long he has been a senator he has been wrong about everything. So that experience only counts in a negative way.

He went on to other things. Kind of a drive by debating tactic. Frustrating, but it can be effective. At least effective enough to send my blood pressure up several points and to leave me spluttering at his back as he left.

Although I would say that one thing that McCain does have experience at is bombing civilians for empire. That might really stand him in good stead at this point in our history.

What a sad point we are in our history. It is possible that McCain may get the office. What in god's name is the problem with the people in this country. I don't much hold with the concept that we get the president we deserve. The people who vote for him may deserve him, I don't.

How wrong for so long

This post lays it out (the title I mean). I have always been an admirer of General Butler and his thoughts about the inability of active duty soldiers to think. Apparently the inability to think independently has spread from just active duty military men to all sorts of inactive and never active individuals.

Given our current situation and the way it reflects on our inability as a nation to learn from Vietnam I believe that I can safely quote a very great philosopher (myself): We're fucked.