After Mark Williams' absurdly racist satirical letter got him booted as Tea Party Express' chairman, he assumed a sufficiently contrite position and waited for the right time to regenerate.

This is how they all operate. "Leaders" do outrageous things, make a big to-do about "stepping down" or "apologizing", separate from their initial group and form a brand-new one. They're like amoebas, splitting and proliferating that way. It's intentional and it's planned.

Via CNN:

Mark Williams, who recently resigned in disgrace as Tea Party Express spokesman, exclusively tells CNN that he is rejoining the conservative grassroots movement. As Williams revealed his new plans he also took a swipe at the Tea Party movement for not being able to move beyond "the cheerleading stage."

Williams revealed, first to CNN, that he is helping to form a political action committee that will channel "Tea Party passion" into electing conservative candidates.

Williams said the effort will be called the "Citizens Reclaiming Constitutional Liberties PAC." He told CNN that paperwork is currently being filed to establish the group and that it should be up and running by August 16. From there, the PAC will proceed in raising seed money and finding candidates it deems conservative enough, Williams said.

As long as there's funding, they'll just split and multiply like one-celled brainless species. There's a certain strange disconnect in having a guy like Williams "reclaiming Constitutional Liberties." I wish someone would ask him how he feels about this week's Prop 8 decision. That's certainly a question of Constitutional liberties, but it could be that Mark Williams is a racist with no opinion on gays.

And if you believe that...

I had a good time in Vegas, so I didn't spend a huge amount of time at NN, but I did spend enough time to take in the mood, and it was schizophrenic. About half the people there are some combination of angry, disappointed and bitter with Democrats in general and Obama in particular.

This group sees him as not a heck of a lot better than George Bush, and in fact the Democrat who extended some of Bush's worst policies, especially in civil liberties. This includes a lot of feminists (angry at what they see as betrayals on abortion), many Hispanics angry at the continued harsh enforcement of immigration laws, gays who feel Obama has betrayed clear promises on gay rights, anti-war activists saddened by escalation in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and a mishmash of folks who think health care reform was a dog's breakfast and that the general way the economy and financial reform has been handled is a disgrace.

Then there are the folks who would characterize themselves, in general, as hard-nosed pragmatists and "realists". These range from the "Obama is the greatest liberal president since FDR" types, who think that the Obama is just wonderful and those progressives and liberals who don't agree are simply delusional to those who feel that a lot of what he's done has been watered down pap in general but that it's certainly better than nothing and that those who are disappointed are unrealistic idealists who simply don't understand the constraints Obama and Congressional Democrats are working under.

As regular readers know, I tend to the first camp, but I'm not going to go into why, I simply want to note that this divide is very real. It's occasioning a lot of anger on both sides. The first sees the second as tribalistic sellouts, willing to excuse horrible things they would never excuse in Republicans so long as they are committed by Democrats and lacking an understanding of just how bad Democratic policy has been. These are folks who tend to sneer at the "wins" as either illusory or so underwhelming as to be a parody of the "lesser evil" argument. (Reminding one inevitably of the T-shirts which say "Why Vote for the lesser evil. Cthulhu 2008.") To many of these folks the other side are, crudely put, sell-outs.

The second side is angry at what they see as fairy-tale thinking and deeply unrealistic. "Obama couldn't fix everything immediately, but he's better than the Republicans will be if they get back in power" is their mantra, ranging from "really, he's wonderful and you're insane for thinking otherwise" to "well, yes he sucks but he sucks less than what the Republicans will do when they get in power." Either way, they see the attacks from what they consider the "purists" as deeply damaging. Democrats may or may not be a ton better than Republicans, but either way, they are better, and there is a moral case to be made for sucking it up one more time and working hard to elect, as the old progressive battle cry runs, "better Democrats". This is a two-party state, with those parties having an unbreakable oligopoly on power. Dissing Democrats just helps the even worse party win, at which point they will do even worse things. So get over your problems, whether they are with economic policy or Obama's continued shredding of fundamental civil liberties like Habeas Corpus, jump back into the trenches with your bowie knife or bayonet and fight for Democrats, not against them because by constantly bad mouthing Dems all you do is make it more likely that Republicans will win, and if they win, well, that will be baaaaddddd. Very, very baaaaaddddd.

To put it crudely and unfairly to both sides, it's the sell-outs without principles against the purists without realism.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1431)

PLAYS: (3868)

Embed

I am convinced that the reason that the Republican Party has not gone the way of the Whig Party is because they have excelled in what I call "bumpersticker politicking". That is to say, they create easily digestible soundbytes that sound right (as long as you don't examine them to closely) and keep the low-information focused on the smaller picture.

They can decry "deficit spending", "job killing", "tax cuts" and it sounds sensible. But as we've shown over and over, when you really look at it, it makes no sense. They are slogans over substance.

But thank the FSM we have Alan Grayson on our side. Because he can match these Republicans yahoos with easily digestible soundbytes and even more importantly, has the substance behind them. Note the nice little dig at presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich (proving once again that leaving the office in disgrace is no reason to fade away for the GOP):

I think that he‘s a disgrace. I wonder why anybody takes him seriously anymore. If he does to America what he did to his own personal life, we‘re all in deep, deep trouble.

Oh ouch. That one left a mark. Grayson makes no attempt to hide his disdain for the Republicans and their politicking around real people's lives. Grayson accurately likens their country club elite concerns to those ascribed to Marie Antoinette (not long before facing the guillotine): The poor can't afford bread? Let them eat cake.

The Republican Party is the party that doesn‘t want to help you. They either want to blame you, or they would try to want to convince that you somehow you‘ll be better off if nobody helps you.

Heather, our VideoCafe queen, made this mash up of the fantastic work Alan Grayson has done in the last couple of days advocating for the interests of the average American person instead of the uber-wealthy, who don't need the government's help to begin with.

On the floor of the House, Grayson soundly berated the Republicans for holding up the extension of unemployment benefits with a "May God have mercy on your souls".

Noting that his grandfather scoured the garbage dump for things he could sell to support his family in the 1930s, Grayson said, “That is the America the Republicans are trying to revive — the America of desperate straits and cheap labor.”

“I know what [Republicans] are th/inking: ‘Why don’t they just sell some stock? If they’re in really dire straits, maybe they could take some of their art collection and send it off to the auctioneer. And if they’re in deep, deep trouble, maybe the unemployed can sell one of their yachts.’ That’s what the Republicans are thinking,” Grayson said.

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric we need to hear from the Democratic Party--pushing back hard and clearly showing how out of touch the Republican Party is. Because I believe strongly that we need to reward this kind of behavior and send a message to weaker Democrats, if you can, send some scratch to Grayson here.

Oh and a little personal aside to Dan Gainor of Newsbusters: You putzes are always big on sounding like big bad bullies and violence is always your answer for anyone you don't like, but you can't even fight your own battles. $100 to knock out Grayson? You overcompensating little man. And you're stupid too; have you any idea how big Grayson is? Dude, you are so overmatched, in size, in brawn, in brains, in compassion and in every other way that marks a real man. Give it up, you wimp.

Friday marked the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing an executive order to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. We were all cheered and encouraged by this bold move on the president’s second full day in office — it signaled he was ready to make a clean break from the Bush administration's unlawful and shameful detention policies.

But when the Obama administration finally does close Guantánamo, it's vital that the administration also puts an end to the policy of detaining prisoners without charge or trial. Indefinite detention is one of the practices that's made Gitmo a disgrace in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Late last year, we debuted a video that included interviews with five former Guantánamo detainees.

Last week we released four break-out videos featuring the same five men telling their stories in more depth: They talk about their lives before ending up in U.S. custody, their experiences at Guantánamo and other U.S.-run detention facilities, and how they've pieced their lives back together after Gitmo. All of the men featured in our video series, like hundreds of others who were held for years at Guantánamo, were eventually released without any charge.

British citizen Moazzam Begg was in Afghanistan, working to open a school for girls, when he was captured. He says in the video: "My experience of America prior to this was everything I had seen in the films: the concept of the good guys, the concept of people trying to do the right thing. And that was shattered."

Bisher al-Rawi was captured in Gambia, where he hoped to open a peanut factory with his brother.

Omar Deghayes was detained at Guantánamo for six years. He was blinded in his right eye after a Gitmo prison guard jabbed him in the face with his fingers.

Childhood friends Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed are two of the "Tipton Three," the subjects of the documentary Road to Guantánamo. They traveled to Afghanistan after attending a friend’s wedding in Pakistan, and were captured there. They both spent 2 ½ years detained by the U.S.

More than 700 men have been detained at Guantánamo since it opened eight years ago; 198 remain. Most of them could tell similar stories about their years-long detention.

To close Gitmo properly, the remaining detainees must either be released, or charged and tried in federal courts, which are better-equipped to handle these cases than the unconstitutional military commissions. Consider the military commissions' track record: A grand total of three cases have been completed since Guantánamo opened as a detention facility in January 2002. Federal courts, on the other hand, have successfully tried more than 200 terrorism cases, including those of the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussoui for conspiring in the 9/11 attacks. The so-called underwear bomber, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, was arraigned in federal court on terrorism charges 14 days after he tried to blow up an airplane. In contrast, most detainees at Guantánamo have languished there for years, without charges brought against them and no end to their detention in sight.

Of those detainees who remain at Guantánamo, Bisher al-Rawi says: "If the U.S. thinks somebody is a criminal, that’s fine. Take him to court and let him have his day in court…either you release people or give them justice, true justice, with no deception, no lies."

DOWNLOADS: (682)

PLAYS: (2593)

Embed

Tim Donaghy, the NBA ref who was driven from the game in disgrace after he was caught gambling on games, including those he officiated, has a new book out making some sensational claims about how the NBA is run. And he went on Greta Van Susteren's show on Fox last night to talk about it.

Van Susteren: You talk about discussions you had beforehand where refs would say they didn't like a particular player, didn't like a particular team, that that sort of factored into whether you thought that the ref would maybe call something or not call something.

Donaghy: Right. I think there was a situation where certain referees, in my mind -- and it obviously proved successful -- could change the point spread in an NBA game based on relationships by four or five points. And when you talk about adding four or five points onto any line that's at Vegas it's like sitting at a blackjack table and knowing that your first card is an ace when the dealer starts to deal.

Van Susteren: You know, that actually shocked me much more in your book, than your own conduct, because as a fan, or as a viewer, I thought this was all done so straight, and then I find out that the refs are also, you know, talking trash about players and about team owners -- and that that has an impact on some of the calls. It took away, sort of, the honesty in the game for me.

Donaghy: Right, and I think the, you know, NBA fans are very knowledgeable. And over the last 10 or 15 years, they know that a lot of unusual things have taken place.

Donaghy describes how officials would single out and punish players like Allen Iverson if they felt the league hadn't punished them enough for misdeeds on the floor. And sometimes they would just pick on players because they had earned the displeasure of the refs:

Donaghy: One player where referees targeted on a continuous basis was Rasheed Wallace. He was one of those guys that just constantly -- seemed to go out of his way to embarrass referees. And when you do that to the referee staff, you know, at times they would come together, and basically try to put him in his place, or try to get him in a position where, you know, he would stop doing what he was doing.

Van Susteren: So there are the NBA players who sort of get the harsher treatment, deliberately. Are there any NBA players who are particularly well liked, or favorites that get a pass? Where maybe they've fouled somebody, or did palming or traveling, and everyone said, 'Let's let him go'?

Donaghy: I mean, there are situations, and the referees are trained in the fact that, obviously, you don't want to be throwing the stars out of the game, or you don't want to be giving a star a foul that you can give to somebody else who's in that area.

Van Susteren: You mean, you'd deliberately pick who you give the foul to? I mean, if there's a collision of players, you'd pick who you'd give the foul to?

Donaghy: Sure.

Van Susteren: So that someone who might be near the limit on the fouls and who might be a star might not get it, but you'd give it to somebody else?

Donaghy: Absolutely.

Van Susteren: Deliberately?

Donaghy: Deliberately.

Van Susteren: And was that discussed beforehand and afterwards, you know, we're going to do this if the situation arises or something like it. And afterwards, good job, you did that?

Donaghy: Well, it's the way that you were trained. Obviously you don't want to give a Kobe Bryant or Shaquille O'Neal or LeBron James a foul that may be his second or third foul in the first quarter, to where he's going to have to go to the bench. I mean, it was openly discussed in meetings that, you know, people paid big dollars to see these stars on the floor. So if there's a situation where you can have two people to pick from, you're certainly not going to pick one of them, you're going to pick someone that's the sixth, seventh, or eighth man on that team.

Van Susteren: And that's expressly said, that that's what you should do.

Donaghy: Absolutely it is.

Now, there's no doubt Donaghy has plenty of motivation to slag his former league, since profits and revenge often mix together. But what Donaghy is describing actually rings true for anyone who has watched NBA games closely over the past several decades.

It has become increasingly clear over the years that NBA officials are corrupt, but not in the usual way; they call games badly at times that are convenient most of all for the NBA, when it wants certain marketable matchups in the playoffs. They are also corrupt in that they clearly make calls based on grudges they hold, and their egos have become the most dominating force on the court.

Anyone who was watching Michael Jordan's rise as the league's premier superstar knows that, in addition to prodigious talent, Jordan was also blessed with a league that stood to gain even more by elevating his stature, and thus with taking it easy on him when it came to officiating.

I was a 12-year season ticket holder to NBA games, and have watched hundreds of NBA games live over the years, and even more on TV. And the process Donaghy describes -- wherein officials decide ahead of time to ameliorate fouls against league stars whenever possible, while simultaneously targeting both players and coaches they deem to be a threat to the officiating crews' supremacy on the court -- was fairly self-evident to anyone who watched many games.

Continue reading »

I had to make a less compelling but similar choice several years ago, when one of my cousins, who also had PKD, asked us all to get tested for possible transplant donation. I was out of work and uninsured, and I knew if I had any complications, I couldn't afford treatment. Even though I felt really bad about it, I didn't get tested.

Isn't it horrible that we're making moral decisions on such immoral grounds? The more I see of the disgusting horse-trading going on over the public option, the more convinced I become that a national (and probably single-payer) health care system is our only sane option.

Nick Kristof:

So what would you do if your mom or dad, or perhaps your sister or brother, needed a kidney donation and you were the one best positioned to donate?

Most of us would worry a little and then step forward. But not so fast. Because of our dysfunctional health insurance system, a disgrace that nearly half of all members of Congress seem determined to cling to, stepping up to save a loved one can ruin your own chance of ever getting health insurance.

That wrenching trade-off is another reminder of the moral bankruptcy of our existing insurance system. It’s one more reason to pass robust reform this year.

Over the last week I’ve been speaking to David Waddington, a 58-year-old wine retailer in Dallas, along with his wife and two sons. I’d love to know what the opponents of health reform think families like this should do.

Mr. Waddington has polycystic kidney disease, or PKD, a genetic disorder that leads to kidney failure. First he lost one kidney, and then the other. A year ago, he was on dialysis and desperately needed a new kidney. Doctors explained that the best match — the one least likely to be rejected — would perhaps come from Travis or Michael, his two sons, then ages 29 and 27.

Travis and Michael each had a 50 percent chance of inheriting PKD. And if pre-donation testing revealed that one of them had the disorder, that brother might never be able to get health insurance. As a result, their doctors had advised not getting tested. After all, new research suggests that lack of insurance increases a working-age person’s risk of dying in any given year by 40 percent.

“At the time David needed a transplant, the people closest to him couldn’t even offer a lifesaving donation — for insurance reasons,” said Mr. Waddington’s wife, Susan.

Travis, who is living in New York and working toward a math doctorate, is anguished at having to weigh insurance obstacles against the chance to save his dad.

“Can you put a price on your father’s life?” he asked. “My brother and I talked it over privately, and agreed that we should both go ahead and get tested anyway. It seemed like the only course of action. We presented our plan to our parents, and of course Mom immediately shot it down, with Dad firmly behind her.

“We had to respect their right to want to protect us. But it was enraging to be in that situation, and to be completely impotent to do anything to help. I told myself a number of times that we would reconsider the issue of testing if Dad’s dialysis stopped working before he got a transplant.”

Continue reading »

Not that I had any doubts, but it's exceedingly clear that the banking industry owns Congress. The failure of the cramdown vote is nothing less than a disgrace:

The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to stave off home foreclosures by a vote of 51 to 45. It was an overwhelming defeat, with the bill's backers falling 15 votes short -- a quarter of the Democratic caucus -- of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote.

The death of the bankruptcy reform measure -- which would have allowed a small number of homeowners who met strict conditions to renegotiate mortgages under bankruptcy protection -- is a major tactical win for the banking industry. But allowing the foreclosure crisis to continue unabated may end up being a failed strategy for the financial sector.

It wasn't easy for Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who led the effort on behalf of homeowners, to wrangle the 45 votes.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who had been on the fence for weeks, gave Durbin his support and nudged him on the way out of the chamber, alerting him of the anti-bank position he'd just taken.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, also cast a courageous vote in favor of the measure. He gave Durbin a hard slap on the arm on the way out.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a strong backer of the bill, spent a good deal of time trying to persuade his colleague Jim Webb (D-Va.).

As she got close to convincing him, she called in Durbin. "Hey Durbs," she could be heard saying, "help me with Jim."

I wonder how our newest Democrat voted? Why, Sen. Specter voted nay! In other words, it's perfectly okay to help the wealthy hang onto their vacation homes, boats and cars (because they're allowed the use of the same bankruptcy procedure for which Congress just deemed You the People unworthy). Other nominal Democrats who agreed that you didn't deserve that kind of help included many of the usual suspects: Baucus, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson (NE), Pryor, and Tester.

Let's give props to Bayh and Warner, who did vote with the majority of the Dems - for a change.

Arianna Huffington is having a WTF? moment:

Continue reading »

Not only do the world's most powerful leaders refuse to shake the POTUS' hand, they also seem to refuse to even make eye contact. Heckuva job, Bush. Heckuva job.

CNN Anchor Rick Sanchez: Bush looks like "the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked."

I think I speak for the entire world (well, everyone other than the 20% dead-enders) when I say January 20th can't come soon enough.

The Carpetbagger Report: The disgrace that is Bush's Housing Department

The Agonist: Liberty and personal responsibility

Ali Eteraz: McCain's spiritual advisor

A Tiny Revolution: Nir Rosen debates Fredrick Kagan on the "surge."

MotherJones Blog: A million man march against STDs?

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: The Cognoscenti, barefoot and progressive, Don't Tase Me, Bro!, Beppe Grillo's Blog

Pandagon: Obama shows strong; racists freak out

The Opinion Mill: While the conservative bookshelf groans under the weight of screeds loaded with childish insults (insert title of Ann Coulter book here) and historical "analysis" that would disgrace a middle school student (Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism is the current, overripe example), a series of progressive writers appeared last year to take on wingnut dogma about free markets and "supply side" mumbo-jumbo.

One Big Union: News and notes from the frontlines of organized labor

Drinking Liberally in New Milford: Hillary Clinton's 103 delegate lead over Obama

Velvel on National Affairs: The failure of moral courage (h/t Make Them Accountable)

archpundit: When pandering doesn't work; Immigrant bashing fails in Iowa