In the aftermath of 9/11 when every politician on either side of the political aisle was drunkenly falling over themselves to see who could out macho the other and pass legislation even more outlandish and freedom restricting than the last, I had a conversation with a particularly conservative friend if mine. She stated, between sips of her extra fiery Bloody Mary, that she felt uncomfortable with some of the powers that were being given to the executive branch under the newly christened Patriot Act and wondered what my thoughts were. I agreed with her and told her that the best way for her to look at any grant of Presidential authority was to ask herself if she would be comfortable giving that power to Bill Clinton, and if she wasn't then it probably wasn't a good idea to give it to Bush, either.
That conversation seems particularly poignant to me now since I see those on the left repeatedly giving the Obama administration a pass as they grab more and more power for themselves at the expense of our freedom and the rule of law.
Just this week we saw the latest in an ongoing saga of stupid decisions on which the left continues to give Obama a pass. When the President invoked Executive Privilege in an attempt to avoid turning over subpoenaed Department of Justice documents my head hit my desk for about the hundredth time. But sure enough there was Democrat after Democrat lining up on this, that, and the other network news show to defend the President's misguided decision. And apparently none of them saw the irony.
Add this to the continued and expanded powers of indefinite detention which now apply to US citizens on US soil, the expanded drone program, the redefining of enemy combatant to include any male of fighting age who happens to be in the area of a drone strike in order to reduce reports of civilian casualties, a program of assassination of not only foreign enemies but US citizens the President himself deems worthy of being killed, and on, and on, and on, you start getting the idea that those on the left are simply willing to let the President do anything as long as he or she is someone for whom they voted.
Take the invoking of Executive Privilege for instance. I would have hoped for at least one elected person in the Democratic Party to have stood up and criticized the President for choosing very tenuous exercise of an extraordinary legal privilege in order to stymie a Congressional investigation into a legitimate subject of Congressional inquiry. The same elected officials who came to this President's defense were decrying GWB's use of this privilege in blocking the investigation into the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, even though Bush's decision, while still improper, was a more legitimate exercise of Executive Privilege than Obama's.
The more we allow this President to expand on the power grabs given to the previous administration without criticism, the more we are ceding our rights to an ever more powerful executive at the cost of our own freedom, and the more we lose any credibility we have to criticize any expansion of governmental power by this or any future administration.
I have no problem with anyone who likes Obama or wants to vote for him because of the many good policies he has implemented. But just because you like his stand on health care, or gay rights, or immigration, doesn't mean you have to sit idly by while he sets fire to Constitution on everything else.
This is why I have such great admiration for people like reporter and author Chris Hedges or Icelandic Parliamentarian Brigitta Jonsdöttir who are two of the Plaintiffs in the groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the Obama administration on the indefinite detention powers granted under NDAA. By refusing to stay silent on a matter of such incredible importance to our basic liberties as Americans, they were able to expose the utter baselessness of the government's justifications for such expanded powers. They won a preliminary injunction against the government using indefinite detention under the NDAA.
The list of actions that I set forth above would have liberals taking to the streets in droves had the Bush administration even thought of implementing them. So, I ask to my liberal brethren the same thing I asked to my conservative friend ten years ago, would you feel comfortable granting these powers to Bush? If the answer is no, as I am sure if you are honest it is, then stand up and offer the same criticism to Obama.
If you won't, then you have already lost.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
The Vagina Demogogues
If you haven't been following the news, Michigan is in the midst of a right wing legislative man-gasm. They have passed a series of laws, many of which immediately became law illegally (thanks Rachel Maddow for being the only person to realize this), which have taken power away from voters as well as infringing on citizens rights, especially if those citizens happened to be women.
The most recent in these series of laws would outlaw all abortions past 20 weeks without any exception. You were raped? Sorry. Your baby has a severe birth defect which renders it incapable of surviving outside the womb? Tough. You may die if your pregnancy continues to term? Well, that's just a chance you're going to half to take, because the men of the Michigan legislature say so.
Needless to say there were a few members of the fairer (and saner) sex that also happened to be members of the legislature who were more than a little upset about this legislation. One of these, Barbara Byrum proposed an amendment which would apply a requirement that men prove to a doctor that the procedure was necessary to save the man's life in order to have a vasectomy performed. A vote was taken denying the amendment without any debate. When Rep. Byrum attempted to address the amendment and speak, she was ruled out of order. I guess turn about is fair play everywhere but the Michigan legislature.
Later, Rep. Lisa Brown gave an impassioned speech about the law on the chamber floor. In part of the speech, in response to those members who had argued that this was a matter of religious liberty for them as devout Christians, that she was Jewish and that her faith dictates that when there was a conflict between the health of the fetus and the health of mother, the health of the mother wins, and that the abortion would not be recommended, but would be required. She further stated that since she was not forcing her religious beliefs on the Christian members, why were they forcing their beliefs on her. She ended her speech by saying "I'm flattered you're all so interested in my vagina. But no means no."
The next day both Brown and Byrum were informed that they would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the legislature because they "failed to maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives." Huh?
Apparently the dispositions of the male members of the Michigan House of Representatives are so sensitive that they simply can't be subjected to words like vagina or attempts by women to actually speak on their amendments to a bill that actually affects their health and lives.
It was pointed out by Brown that her male counterparts had actually engaged in fisticuffs on the House floor recently and had suffered no such similar action.
Has "vagina" somehow become verboten? Should Representative Brown said hoo-ha? Or coochie? Or blossoming flower? Or are the bastions of male dominated Michigan law dudes so sensitive that they would prefer "private part" or "area" or better yet "down there?"
Perhaps they are threatened by powerful women who aren't afraid to use medically correct anatomical terminology when talking about their feminine parts. I did notice that each of the women was loudly gaveled down by the presiding male of the chamber and that gavel he was hammering was awfully big. Maybe there are some shortcomings amongst the male members of the male members of the House.
What else would explain such action for saying "vagina?" I guess not only are the men of the Michigan House of Representatives operating on a third-grade level of intelligence, but also a third-grade level of maturity. I guess next we are going to ban women from serving in the legislature altogether because, as we all know, girls have cooties.
What it all really comes down to is that the men running the Michigan legislature simply can't handle women who speak loudly, proudly, and angrily in defense of their rights, especially when those rights are under constant assault by those same men. The Michigan men would prefer that their women be demure and compliant, laying back and accepting the daily volleys lobbed against them.
However, I have one last thing to say to those that are trying to silence Michigan women figuratively through their laws and literally through their punishments against female members of the House. If you can't talk about vaginas on the House floor, should you really be passing laws that affect them so much?
The most recent in these series of laws would outlaw all abortions past 20 weeks without any exception. You were raped? Sorry. Your baby has a severe birth defect which renders it incapable of surviving outside the womb? Tough. You may die if your pregnancy continues to term? Well, that's just a chance you're going to half to take, because the men of the Michigan legislature say so.
Needless to say there were a few members of the fairer (and saner) sex that also happened to be members of the legislature who were more than a little upset about this legislation. One of these, Barbara Byrum proposed an amendment which would apply a requirement that men prove to a doctor that the procedure was necessary to save the man's life in order to have a vasectomy performed. A vote was taken denying the amendment without any debate. When Rep. Byrum attempted to address the amendment and speak, she was ruled out of order. I guess turn about is fair play everywhere but the Michigan legislature.
Later, Rep. Lisa Brown gave an impassioned speech about the law on the chamber floor. In part of the speech, in response to those members who had argued that this was a matter of religious liberty for them as devout Christians, that she was Jewish and that her faith dictates that when there was a conflict between the health of the fetus and the health of mother, the health of the mother wins, and that the abortion would not be recommended, but would be required. She further stated that since she was not forcing her religious beliefs on the Christian members, why were they forcing their beliefs on her. She ended her speech by saying "I'm flattered you're all so interested in my vagina. But no means no."
The next day both Brown and Byrum were informed that they would not be allowed to speak on the floor of the legislature because they "failed to maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives." Huh?
Apparently the dispositions of the male members of the Michigan House of Representatives are so sensitive that they simply can't be subjected to words like vagina or attempts by women to actually speak on their amendments to a bill that actually affects their health and lives.
It was pointed out by Brown that her male counterparts had actually engaged in fisticuffs on the House floor recently and had suffered no such similar action.
Has "vagina" somehow become verboten? Should Representative Brown said hoo-ha? Or coochie? Or blossoming flower? Or are the bastions of male dominated Michigan law dudes so sensitive that they would prefer "private part" or "area" or better yet "down there?"
Perhaps they are threatened by powerful women who aren't afraid to use medically correct anatomical terminology when talking about their feminine parts. I did notice that each of the women was loudly gaveled down by the presiding male of the chamber and that gavel he was hammering was awfully big. Maybe there are some shortcomings amongst the male members of the male members of the House.
What else would explain such action for saying "vagina?" I guess not only are the men of the Michigan House of Representatives operating on a third-grade level of intelligence, but also a third-grade level of maturity. I guess next we are going to ban women from serving in the legislature altogether because, as we all know, girls have cooties.
What it all really comes down to is that the men running the Michigan legislature simply can't handle women who speak loudly, proudly, and angrily in defense of their rights, especially when those rights are under constant assault by those same men. The Michigan men would prefer that their women be demure and compliant, laying back and accepting the daily volleys lobbed against them.
However, I have one last thing to say to those that are trying to silence Michigan women figuratively through their laws and literally through their punishments against female members of the House. If you can't talk about vaginas on the House floor, should you really be passing laws that affect them so much?
Monday, June 4, 2012
Why the Democrats Will Lose in 2012
We heard it from three different voices. All of them acting as surrogates of the Obama campaign. They're message was as clear as it was disturbing. "Lay off Wall Street."
No sooner was Cory Booker walking back his now infamous "nauseating" comment about Bain Capital that two other Democratic titans were letting loose with the same criticisms of Obama 2012's milquetoast critique of their opponent's record of destroying American companies for profit. Deval Patrick, the current occupier of the only political office Mitt Romney ever held and none other than former president and current Wall Street stooge Bill Clinton joined in with their own version of the "Lay off private equity" argument.
Of course none of this should surprise us. The same wizards of finance who shipped off American jobs overseas, bankrupted our economy with complex and destructive derivatives, and are living off of the teat of the Federal Reserve's promise of free money in exchange for nothing are also currently footing the bill for the up and comers in the Democratic Party.
Without contributions from private equity, Booker would never have been able to break the machine of corrupt Newark politics which dispatched him with ease in his first election. Patrick would not be able to maintain his governorship in a state which has become more and more of a toss up. And of course Clinton would have nobody to pay his six figure speaking fees to appear at Wall Street conferences where he gets to rub elbows with financial high rollers (and in some cases, recently, porn stars).
And these Democrats know on which side their bread is buttered. In return for their handsome campaign treasuries paid for by private equity, not only do these donors get incredibly favorable treatment across the board in the form of beneficial laws and tax codes, they also buy themselves the luxury of being free from any criticism at all.
Obama is learning this the hard way. In 2008, the Obama campaign raised more money from Wall Street than any campaign in history. Their money paid off handsomely for the financial sector of our economy as the new administration bypassed any criminal penalties for the 2008 crash, passed what amounted to very weak reforms that were essentially useless in changing any of the behavior that led to the collapse, installed all of the architects of the financial bail out as his Treasury Department, re-appointed Ben Bernanke to keep the free money flowing, and even stated that the underhanded practices and scheming that led to our financial meltdown were legal. Not bad for a few hundred million dollars.
But all of that wasn't enough. Because Obama occasionally would break out his populist rhetoric from the campaign, referring to Wall Street as a casino or the CEO's reaping twenty million dollar bonuses financed by tax payer cash "fat cats" Wall Street has chosen not to fill Obama's coffers quite as much as they did four years ago. The message was clear: if you hurt out feelings, we will hurt your bottom line.
So, when the campaign rolled out long form documentary style ads on the Internet criticizing Mitt Romney's time at private equity firm Bain Capital, the surrogates had to be called out. And of course in cunning fashion, Wall Street's surrogates happened to be Obama's surrogates as well.
Let's take a minute to look at what Bain Capital, and their cohorts in private equity do, shall we? Private equity firms, also called derisively "vulture capitalists" target struggling companies, buy them out, load them with debt, more often than not then strip them of their value, selling off the remaining assets, thereby profiting off of the remaining carcass. The result is a boon to the private equity company and usually a modest profit from the company's shareholders. The other result, inevitably, is the loss of jobs for the company's workers.
This is the modern version of the corporate raiders like Ivan Boesky and Michael Millkin in the 1980's. The only difference is that Boesky and Millkin ended up serving long prison sentences after being prosecuted by the justice departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Now, the raiders get to potentially run their own justice department.
After seeing the fall out from 2008, the resulting recession/depression, the enormous crises in home foreclosures and unemployment and the still stagnant economy, attacking Romney's record in private equity should be a no brainier. But the Democrats are apparently still unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it.
Look, a growing number of people both across the country and across the globe are waking up to the fact that the financial sector and its growing influence on our politics, is the enemy of free and democratic process. This has been the spark that has led to uprisings across the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and in the US in the Occupy movement as well as the breathtaking protests in Madison against the anti-worker Scott Walker administration. People realizing that their livelihoods and futures are being sacrificed for some kind of corporate kleptocracy are refusing to lie down and accept it.
But the Democrats stubbornly refuse to believe in this movement, or for that matter refuse to show any real beliefs at all. By refusing to attack Mitt Romney on what is likely his most vulnerable issue, the Democrats will once again avoid what should be a reasonably easy win against a remarkably unlikable opponent. The same goes for the unwillingness if the DNC to aggressively campaign against Walker in his recall election in Wisconsin and the lukewarm support they are showing anti-Wall Street crusader Elizabeth Warren in her bid to unseat Scott Brown in the US Senate race in Massachusetts.
Of course by not fully representing their own true constituents, the Democrats deserve to lose, and by continuing to support front men for Wall Street running for office as Democrats, we all will end up with the government we deserve.
No sooner was Cory Booker walking back his now infamous "nauseating" comment about Bain Capital that two other Democratic titans were letting loose with the same criticisms of Obama 2012's milquetoast critique of their opponent's record of destroying American companies for profit. Deval Patrick, the current occupier of the only political office Mitt Romney ever held and none other than former president and current Wall Street stooge Bill Clinton joined in with their own version of the "Lay off private equity" argument.
Of course none of this should surprise us. The same wizards of finance who shipped off American jobs overseas, bankrupted our economy with complex and destructive derivatives, and are living off of the teat of the Federal Reserve's promise of free money in exchange for nothing are also currently footing the bill for the up and comers in the Democratic Party.
Without contributions from private equity, Booker would never have been able to break the machine of corrupt Newark politics which dispatched him with ease in his first election. Patrick would not be able to maintain his governorship in a state which has become more and more of a toss up. And of course Clinton would have nobody to pay his six figure speaking fees to appear at Wall Street conferences where he gets to rub elbows with financial high rollers (and in some cases, recently, porn stars).
And these Democrats know on which side their bread is buttered. In return for their handsome campaign treasuries paid for by private equity, not only do these donors get incredibly favorable treatment across the board in the form of beneficial laws and tax codes, they also buy themselves the luxury of being free from any criticism at all.
Obama is learning this the hard way. In 2008, the Obama campaign raised more money from Wall Street than any campaign in history. Their money paid off handsomely for the financial sector of our economy as the new administration bypassed any criminal penalties for the 2008 crash, passed what amounted to very weak reforms that were essentially useless in changing any of the behavior that led to the collapse, installed all of the architects of the financial bail out as his Treasury Department, re-appointed Ben Bernanke to keep the free money flowing, and even stated that the underhanded practices and scheming that led to our financial meltdown were legal. Not bad for a few hundred million dollars.
But all of that wasn't enough. Because Obama occasionally would break out his populist rhetoric from the campaign, referring to Wall Street as a casino or the CEO's reaping twenty million dollar bonuses financed by tax payer cash "fat cats" Wall Street has chosen not to fill Obama's coffers quite as much as they did four years ago. The message was clear: if you hurt out feelings, we will hurt your bottom line.
So, when the campaign rolled out long form documentary style ads on the Internet criticizing Mitt Romney's time at private equity firm Bain Capital, the surrogates had to be called out. And of course in cunning fashion, Wall Street's surrogates happened to be Obama's surrogates as well.
Let's take a minute to look at what Bain Capital, and their cohorts in private equity do, shall we? Private equity firms, also called derisively "vulture capitalists" target struggling companies, buy them out, load them with debt, more often than not then strip them of their value, selling off the remaining assets, thereby profiting off of the remaining carcass. The result is a boon to the private equity company and usually a modest profit from the company's shareholders. The other result, inevitably, is the loss of jobs for the company's workers.
This is the modern version of the corporate raiders like Ivan Boesky and Michael Millkin in the 1980's. The only difference is that Boesky and Millkin ended up serving long prison sentences after being prosecuted by the justice departments of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Now, the raiders get to potentially run their own justice department.
After seeing the fall out from 2008, the resulting recession/depression, the enormous crises in home foreclosures and unemployment and the still stagnant economy, attacking Romney's record in private equity should be a no brainier. But the Democrats are apparently still unwilling to bite the hand that feeds it.
Look, a growing number of people both across the country and across the globe are waking up to the fact that the financial sector and its growing influence on our politics, is the enemy of free and democratic process. This has been the spark that has led to uprisings across the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and in the US in the Occupy movement as well as the breathtaking protests in Madison against the anti-worker Scott Walker administration. People realizing that their livelihoods and futures are being sacrificed for some kind of corporate kleptocracy are refusing to lie down and accept it.
But the Democrats stubbornly refuse to believe in this movement, or for that matter refuse to show any real beliefs at all. By refusing to attack Mitt Romney on what is likely his most vulnerable issue, the Democrats will once again avoid what should be a reasonably easy win against a remarkably unlikable opponent. The same goes for the unwillingness if the DNC to aggressively campaign against Walker in his recall election in Wisconsin and the lukewarm support they are showing anti-Wall Street crusader Elizabeth Warren in her bid to unseat Scott Brown in the US Senate race in Massachusetts.
Of course by not fully representing their own true constituents, the Democrats deserve to lose, and by continuing to support front men for Wall Street running for office as Democrats, we all will end up with the government we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)