More Assange

It strikes me that we should all be writing about Julian Assange and his situation, and yet there seems to be little to nothing.  Except in some not particularly mainstream left wing blogs.   Lawyers, guns, and money, haven't written about him since they lost their shit back when the big Wikileaks dump happened and one of the posters there, who has since left, became hysterical and demanded that he be arrested, or perhaps killed I don't remember which.  I was able to point out that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with Lynn Chaney, which seemed to upset them quite a bit.  Some fun.

Greenwald has written a couple of things about him at the Guardian.  I do find the comments section to be depressing to put it mildly.  It does appear as though the people who are commenting either cannot understand English, which is disturbing since their country is the one that invented it.  Or perhaps they just read the headline, it is so much easier that way, don't you know?

The incredible hysteria about his attempt to get asylum is creepy to say the least.  The threat to storm the embassy from the government in order to drag him out is just interesting to watch from the country that gave Pinochet asylum.  There is no self awareness on the part of the government and there is no recognition on the part of most of the media of the hypocrisy.

Then the U.S. chimes in (for what reason no one can tell since we certainly do not want to extradite him to stand trial [or not] to our country or perhaps Cuba) and says that we never did believe in that asylum stuff anyway.  Although someone might tell that to the Chinese government and then someone might want to mention it to the Hungarians also since we sheltered Cardinal Mindszenty for over a decade.  But then that is really very different don't ch no.

The point is that stench of hypocrisy and mendacity as Big Daddy said is nearly overpowering.  It is clear that the only reason Sweden won't agree not to extradite Assange to the U.S. is that they are planning on doing just that.  It is also clear that the only reason we want him is to punish him for trying to practice journalism and force us to practice democracy. .  Well, who cares at this point, we've made our point and have probably stopped many others who might have tried to allow a little light into the decaying carcase of what used to be called a democracy, or a democratic republic, or even for that matter a republic.  The last best hope, etcetera etectera and so forth.    If one gives the people too damn many facts it will just in the end confuse them, after all.

One and a Half Cheers for Democracy.

I've been thinking about this post since I woke up yesterday and found out that New York has legalized gay marriage.  It might be my general morose outlook on life, the fact I've been sick for about three weeks, or my accurate view of things.  On the other hand I see that Whiskey Fire kind of beat me to it.  

My thought was and still is that the powers who control the world, at this point do not give a fuck about you and me and are unable to see further than their next dividend check, or pay out from the Koch brothers (with the possible exception of Iceland if we are talking only about Europe and North America. 

The recent victories in kind of ending DADT (that I'll believe when I see it actually happen, that is more than the harrumph and more or less meaningless votes in congress) and now gay marriage in New York, cost our rulers nothing.  At the same time Coumo the Younger is set to seriously injure the workers and middle class (such as is left) in the Empire State he has a shinny new prize that he will give all us liberals.  Of course, in Ohio all we get is the financial fuck you without even the shinny bauble of some social progress. 

The problem with pointing this out is that it seems as though I'm saying that the right to marry is not important and we shouldn't care about it.  Once all this is said though, we come back to the fact that this is very important and a recognition that there should be no second class citizens in this country.  This is particularly important when one looks at the Rove strategy of the 2000 election of getting anti-marriage equality amendments on various state ballots to bring out the red necks to vote again' them and in passing vote against Gore too.  Even last year when the Iowa Supreme Court Justices were thrown off the court in an anti-marriage equality backlash.  So this is indeed, a big fucking deal.

But I've just watched today Inside Job the movie about the financial melt down in 2008 and beyond.  I think that it is a better movie than Michael Moore's Capitalism a Love Story.  Mainly because Moore was unable to bring himself to really do any criticism of his man Obama.  Inside Job is definitely a movie I strongly recommend, it makes the melt down and derivatives completely understandable.

There are a couple of  things that make it worth while.  First it was enjoyable was watching a few of the important economists come to the realization during the questioning that the guy asking  the questions wasn't the kind of namby pamby soft ball inquisitor they were used to.  None of the questions were particularly rude, but he did follow up.  In particular Frederick Miskin a former member of the Fed who seemed to stutter a lot when asked direct questions and Glenn Hubbard who seems pretty upset when asked about being paid for among other things a report he wrote for the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce.

Which leads to another issue, or perhaps it is the same issue in a different light, and that is that most of the economic professors seem to be bought and paid for by various Wall Street firms.  I'd guess that the response to that is:  Of course why not, shouldn't they get what the politicians are all getting?  I guess I'm a little naive here.  My thoughts on the matter were that good economics professors could make money investing, because they should now when to get in and when to get out.  But that is not true.  The amount of wishes can make it true economic thought is truly scary even after the crash, well that and the who could have known defenses.

No Stay

Ok in answer to my own question.  Why does the right keep attacking no matter what democrat is president even when the president is one of those nice republican lites: Carter, Clinton, or Obama?

Because they can.  If they push they will get more and more and when they get more they want more.  They are kind of like my dogs.  If I give them a treat, they don't say thank you and lay back down they come back immediately looking for another.  Like the wolves after that sledge.

Now, the question then becomes, if it isn't some super secret cabal, why do the democrats keep giving them these treats?

Souls For Sale

It occurs to me that after the elections this November, if the republicans sweep, the exact same thing will happen that happened after the Massachusetts' senatorial election. Those at fault will be the DFHs who refused to vote for warmed over cat piss. Or the democrats in Obama's image as I like to think of them. Those people who sold their souls to our corporate masters. I would guess that is the difference between the republicans andthe democrats: the democrats have souls to sell, the republicans never had them to begin with.

Then I read at Crooks and Liars that the republicans are outspending the democrats almost 10 to 1 and I sware that it was only a few months ago that I was reading how the democrats were awash in fat cat cash which they were getting for the afore mentioned selling of souls on various issues such as health care and others too numerous to mention. They were going to be so flush with cash that they didn't need us peaons out there working for them, they were going to get by without us. What happened anyway? Where did all that money go?

So essentially the republicans aparently have their souls (if they have any, which is a real question) on permanent lease to the big boys, where as the democrats, no matter how much they really want be owned by the plutacrats who run our country can never be trusted to stay bought I guess.

Is American ready for self-government?*

You know I was pretty upset when I read this. So some republican governors are considering turning down their share of the stimulus. Of course a [an?] heroic democratic senator managed to get a section into the bill which will permit state legislatures to over rule any governor who is "brave" enough (or is planning on running for president on the republican ticket) to turn down their state's share of the stimulus.

So they can easily say that: "Hey I tried to be true to my principles, but the guys in the legislature wouldn't let me." So that they will just have to take that money and use it to keep their state afloat. Then brag about how clever they were in helping their people without that damned Obama.

I think that maybe I'm not so upset with the republican governors, but rather with a voting population that could be fooled that easily. (Yeah, I know, I was indeed here in 2000 and 2004.) But hope, as someone says, springs eternal. Also, although I would expect no less than that kind of stupid trick from the ruling? democrats, I am still shall we say disappointed.

*Dog House Riley

Holder/Firedoglake

You know that Firedoglake is a really great blog, but this is just bullshit (of course it is EmptyWheel).

I've been in the NLG for over twenty years and I know those people were not violent and the pardon was welcomed all around progressive organizations in the U.S. and most of the world. There are probably many things not to like Holder about, but this is not one of them. His bucking the rank and file at DOJ is a good sign in a future leader of that department.

What is going on, are people in the progressive world so ready to attack our own that we now buy into right wing talking points. The people who were pardoned were not themselves people who had committed violent acts. Several Nobel Peace Prize winners asked for them to be pardoned. They were required to fore sware violence in the future.

Not only that but it's badly written.

I Just Don't Know More Gazing At Self

I don't know, but I just don't have a lot to say here in the last few days. Possibly just getting back from vacation and I'm still basking in the afterglow. Or maybe I'm just lazy.

A second rate party hack like Panetta is scaring the torturers left and right. How far gone must our government and oversight be to have them come out of the wood work like they have to try to oppose someone who at most will be a moderate. And is very unlikely to rock the boat much at all. Of course this might just be a little warning shot across the bow of the good ship Obama. We have raised such a ruckus about this guy who is really one of us, just think what we will do if you try to appoint someone who is really progressive or in favor of real change. What do you think that they might know about, these liberal senators? What do think that they might have approved, these liberal senators?

I am getting this very sinking feeling kind of like watching -- dare I say it again -- a slow motion train wreck. A guy is elected who says that he is for change, but it's all wink, wink, nudge nudge. We keep the power we control what goes on in this not so much a democracy. You just think you have any say in this government. It is the Village or runs things here and now.

When did this start? Was it with Carter? Nixon? Our type are the people who must run things. Even though we have been wrong for neigh on twenty years or more (and yes I count Clinton [both of them] who desperately want to be part of the in crowd). The only reason we as a country haven't gone down the tubes already is because we are so damn rich and so damn isolated.

Let us not talk about Reid and Burris/Frankin and Gupta/Moore/Obama. Oh lets, but not right now.

Filibusters

Question: When did a threatened filibuster become the same thing as an actual filibuster?

Just askin'.

Ron Carey and the Teamstersers

So Ron Carey died last week. For some reason I had been thinking about him. There is a Teamster office building that I frequently drive by on a regular basis.

I remember when his second election as president of the Teamsters was essentially stolen from him by the federal court system. Practice, I guess for Bush v. Gore. Without Carey the Teamsters reverted to a fiefdom for the Hoffas and their reactionary politics. Nepotism in all things I guess. He was I prevented from running after they took the election from him. So the the courts essentially crowned Hoffa. It is interesting to see that there haven't been the kind of incisive investigations of Hoffa that there were of Carey. It is particularly galling when you realize that Carey was not guilty of any real crime. So they took one of the most powerful unions away from its progressive leaders and gave it back to the reactionaries.

Professional Wrestling or Roller Derby, You Be The Judge

Well now I think I've got today's politics figured out: It's like professional wresting. The refs (news media) are always being worked by the bad guys (Republicans). The good guys (Democrats [OK, I know that's stretching it]) are constantly having their eyes gouged and being illegally hit upon by the bad guys and the refs are always looking the other way when it happens. Except when they are taking bribes, I guess.

The fans scream ineffectively and watch the bad guys beat the shit out of the good guys. Further it is all pretend. In the end the wrestlers and refs all go back into the locker rooms and are real good buddies and all is forgiven.

And they take the fans money and split it up amongst themselves.

Or maybe Roller Derby?

The Republican "Filibuster"

When do you think the Senate leadership is going to force the Republicans to really filibuster as opposed to taking a painless vote. Then saying well we don't have the votes let's go home. Do you think that this group of leaders will ever force the issue and make the Republicans go through actual day in and day out coming to the floor for votes at all hours of the day or night?

Neither did I. And by the way where was Obama during all this? Just askin?

Illinois

A couple of Illinois criminals with their mouthpiece.

Well did you see what the governor of Illinois has been up to (just one link among many)? Apparently. I've had a lot of cases where the prosecution has an iron clad case right up to the point that the evidence starts to be presented. Although, to be fair it does look like they may have the guy on tape. It do appear that he was asking for money for appointed Obama's replacement.

I thought that they way things were done was that the people in charge wheeled and dealed -- although probably not in actual cash. Or at least you didn't' mention that you expected a cash advantage from the deal.

If it is true perhaps they should just imprison who ever is nominated for governor of Illinois and skip the middle step of office holding.

I had another thought. In this kind of case the defendant be he senator from Alaska or congressman from Louisiana is usually not arrested and taken off to the slammer. Since this guy was set to appoint a key senator and probably a Democrat is it possible that the U.S. Attorney decided to get back into the good graces of the Republican party after the Scotter Libby affair? To make it impossible for a Democrat to be appointed right now? Just askin'?

Lieberman

I've gotten stuff from various lefty/progressive/liberal blogs asking me to contact my democratic senator telling him that he and the rest of the dems in the Senate should force Lieberman out of his post as chair of his Senate Committee.

Now here is a guy that went to the Republican convention, spoke there, traveled with the Republican presidential candidate, said that the Democratic candidate was not fit for the job and Reid still likes the guy. The Democrats seem to be considering whether to punish him and strip him of his seniority and chairmanship, or not.

It's the "or not" that is bazaar and raises the question of whether the Democrats stand for anything at all..........even covering each others' backs. I mean come on, if they are willing to allow a guy who has done everything he could to destroy their party and their candidate to remain in their caucus -- no matter how much they think they need his vote then they are not capable of being the majority party. When you are in the majority then you are supposed to run things. If you can't then you shouldn't be in the majority. Of course these people haven't been able to take a principled stand in two years why should they now.

I think that it's even money that they will give Lieberman everything he demands and call it a victory. There will be "serious" talking heads explaining why this is the smart thing to do and then Lieberman will screw them to the wall the first chance he gets.

The line "Sometimes you gotta stand for something" is one that apparently no one in the Democratic leadership has ever heard. Or if they've heard it they certainly don't understand it. Nor do they seem to care that they look weak (of course that would only be because they are weak) and that the Republicans and your average voter will have even more contempt for them.

At any rate if these people don't have the back bone it takes to oust Lieberman for both practical and moral reasons without my little missive they won't do it with it.

The point is that Lieberman has generally been on the wrong side of all most all issues he has had to confront. If all the Democrats do is give him what he wants to get his vote (maybe sometimes for some things) then hell. They are as sorry a lot as I think they are.

Post Election Glow?

Ok, it is nice to see the other side eating their own. And it is good to revel in a rare victory.

On the other hand, the fact that Obama has chosen Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is not a good sign, nor is this.

We need to remember that the only institution of government that had a worse approval rating than the president was the congress, controlled by the Democrats. Why, cause they ran on change and did nothing except enable the Bush presidency. Let's face it the congress has acted like the abused wife of a violent drunken husband.

Now there is serious [maybe] discussion of whether or not to remove Lieberman from the chairmanship of his Senate committee. I mean come on. Discussion, who can possibly even consider keeping him on? This guy has been running around campaigning for McCain. How can you keep him as a part of your party when he does that? Only if you are really a loser party that is how. Oh, I'm sorry loser and Democratic Party are kind of synonymous, not so much in winning elections, but in trying to accomplish something afterward.

Maybe I studied the Roman Empire too much in college, but their elections seemed to become more and more violent the more their parties had in common and it was only about dividing the spoils for the winners.

At any rate, what it seems that we little people need to keep the Democrat's feet to the fire and continue to force them to enact progressive/liberal legislation. No rest for the wicked communists I guess.

The other half of all this is that any marginal move by the Democrats to lurch even slightly to the left will be met by the right wing noise machine screaming about the socialists and communists (and race and sex mixers) forcing us down that road to serfdom [see Clinton, William, Presidency] and homosexual abortions. Well ok the forced homosexual abortion thing will be the first item on the agenda of the Democratic party, I have been told this by an unimpeachable source:

So any rate we all need to remain vigilant and continue to fight, cause this thing isn't over by a long shot. The quote: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Is noble, but kind of tiring when you think about it.

But hell, what else you gonna do? So the job has just started.

Our Democracy

Well we were to go to a meeting tonight and Senator McCain intervened. He had a meeting at the school across the street. There were of course, not parking places near. However, according to the pastor at the church, the Secret Service or McCain people came in and took over the church and told the pastor he and the church had no choice. They also tore up the church yard with their vehicles after being told that they were not to park in it. Wonder who, if anyone is liable?

I would be outraged at the McCain campaign, if I hadn't heard a similar story about when Obama came to town. I cannot understand why the security has to be overwhelming and why an allegedly free people must be kept so far from their leaders. Unless of course we are not really that free.

I know Kennedy was killed and Reagan was shot, but Roosevelt was almost killed, Lincoln was, Garfield and McKinley were also shot and the security was not increased then. It really wasn't until after Kennedy was shot. Perhaps not until Reagan. Are we just unable to trust ourselves anymore?