Sunday, July 4, 2010

The Fourth of July

A Happy Fourth of July to all who pass by this blog! Today is a holiday that I like to remember for its original intent: the anniversary of the proclamation we know as the Declaration of Independence, and the beginnings of revolution by the Founding Fathers. Very few, in our willfully ignorant, consumerist society, really understand the gravity of what they did, nor the risks they took. In fact, a recent Marist poll revealed that over one-fourth of the population didn't know what country we declared independence from! I find this almost unbelievable, and so does Free-Spirited Ruminations:
Wow! Didn't they ever hear the famous phrase by Paul Revere warning the residents that "The British are coming?" Or ever open a history book? China? MEXICO? Mexico didn't even exist in 1776! Seriously, this level of stupidity is downright scary. Perhaps the fireworks are just pretty colors to this group
Pretty colors, indeed. The Founding Fathers, in contemporary parlance, were revolutionaries and terrorists. That line in the Declaration of Independence about "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor?" That wasn't fancy talkin', as Sarah Palin would say; it was an open declaration (duh!) to the world that they were risking everything they had for the sake of liberty. They risked a dear price for their action and beliefs (though not as awful a price as described in a popular email that shows up around this time every year; always check snopes.com, kids!) and gambled that they would succeed. Failure meant that they would instead be branded terrorists and found guilty of inciting insurrection.

But  because they won and because we are the beneficiaries of their actions, on this day we call them "the Founding Fathers," are taught about them in school (or so I thought before I saw that poll), and honor and remember this day as the birth of our country. Otherwise, today we would be British subjects, and schoolchildren would learn about the evil George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and their band of traitors; Benedict Arnold would be a hero of the Empire, and slavery would probably have ended without a civil war.

As a progressive and African-American, this day has always tasted bittersweet to me. I revere the words in the Declaration of Independence, especially this paragraph:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
But I also recall that the section condemning Britain for the slave trade was deleted, and that today, we still haven't fully endowed some of our citizens with these self-evident rights. As progressives we are mindful of the need to "alter or abolish" our government when it had "become destructive of these ends." as it was from 2001 to 2009. That 's what the election of Barack Obama was all about. We are ever mindful of the rights of the individual, and of the responsibility for the American government to be a government "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Unfortunately, conservatives - notably the Tea Party types - don't understand what exactly was meant by "alter and abolish." It doesn't mean that when you don't get your way, you start a civil war! It also  doesn't mean that you can run around brandishing deadly weapons in an  irresponsible manner, because your candidate didn't get elected. But neither does it mean that righties are the only ones who should be armed. I came across something on DailyKos today that I think all progressives should read: Angry Mouse's post "Why liberals should love the Second Amendment." Some very cogent points made in favor of the right to bear arms that should be of interest to you.

But I digress. My point is that today is a day to honor revolution, sacrifice, and the willingness to risk much to gain much, not an excuse to shop, overeat, and drink too much. We as progressives should honor and observe that selfsame will to revolution and sacrifice, the will and determination to make government reflect the will and the needs of our citizens. We need to remember that as we fight the wingnuts for the soul of America, we need not employ violence in the pursuit of our beliefs, but neither should we shirk from the necessity of violence in self-defense. We need to remember the spirit of those who have gone before us, on this day and every day, and neither falter nor fail in our task to repair, restore, and renew our country.

The late Steve Gilliard wrote:
It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.

Without liberals, there would be no modern America, just a Nazi sattlelite [sic] state. Liberals weak on defense? Liberals created America's defense. The conservatives only need vets at election time.

It is time to stop looking for an accomodation [sic] with the right. They want none for us. They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you? 
Once again and always, it comes down to the willingness to "pledge...our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." 

What am I? I'm a Fighting Liberal. What are you? 

Happy Fourth of July!

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Hit The Road, Jack! (or Stanley)

Pres. Obama today relieved Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the commander American forces in Afghanistan:
He said he had done so not out of personal insult, but because a magazine article featuring contemptuous quotes from the general and his staff about senior administration officials had not met standards of behavior for a commanding general, and threatened to undermine civilian control of the military.
“War is bigger than any one man or woman, whether a private, a general or president,” Mr. Obama said. “As difficult as it is to lose General McChrystal, I believe it is the right decision for national security.”
“I welcome debate among my team,” he said, “but I won’t tolerate division.” 
 Buh-bye, ya asshole; take MacArthur's advice, and "just fade away." And I'm also guessing that the family of Pat Tillman will see this as delayed justice for McChrystal's role in the disgraceful cover-up of Tillman's death by friendly fire.

So now, the question is: will the Repugs call him "an angry black man" for firing McChrystal, or a wimp for going along with Gates/Hillary et al? We'll see.

And Another Thing!

Steve Clemons of the Washington Note, appearing tonight on the Rachel Maddow Show and earlier today at the Huffington Post, expressed exactly some of the same concerns and complaints that I have about Gen. McChrystal's insubordination.

From Clemons' post today about the McChrystal controversy at the Huffington Post:
He created a culture of disdain for civilian leadership and showed intolerance for views that differed from his own - even though he was king of the hill as far as the Afghanistan surge. What McChrystal has done is to challenge not the President directly or even the chain of command -- but rather he and his command staff have undermined the very foundation of public trust in the White House's legitimacy and leadership.
And yes, one of the problems I have with McChrystal--aside from his beer-fueled disrespect for not only his civilian and military superiors, but also our allies in Afghanistan--is that McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy is based on the failed military adventures of France, in Morocco, and The United States, in Vietnam. How stupid can you get? Is this strategy really worth $100 billion a year?

Here's Clemons on Maddow:




Again: fire him.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Fire McChrystal

Just finished reading the Rolling Stone article about Gen. Stanley McCrystal, wherein the general shows his lack of respect for Pres. Obama, his civilian and military superiors, and frankly, himself. He also shouldn't have let himself be interviewed with a few drinks under his belt....and especially Bud Lite Lime--yuck! He also seems particularly clumsy with the political and social responsibilities that go with four-star rank.

Rolling Stone:
[...]n private, Team McChrystal likes to talk shit about many of Obama's top people on the diplomatic side. One aide calls Jim Jones, a retired four-star general and veteran of the Cold War, a "clown" who remains "stuck in 1985." Politicians like McCain and Kerry, says another aide, "turn up, have a meeting with Karzai, criticize him at the airport press conference, then get back for the Sunday talk shows. Frankly, it's not very helpful." Only Hillary Clinton receives good reviews from McChrystal's inner circle.

[...]

McChrystal reserves special skepticism for (Special Representative to Afghanistan Richard) Holbrooke, the official in charge of reintegrating the Taliban. "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal," says a member of the general's team.

Pres. Obama, please fire his disrespectful, disloyal ass.

Monday, June 21, 2010

If Corporations Are People, Do They Taste Like Chicken?

Furthermore, can they be tried and executed?

The BP Gulf disaster is the worst environment catastrophe in American history. Millions of barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, coastlines, wetlands, and beaches fouled for what may be years, businesses destroyed, and a massive die-off of sea life in the Gulf. If an individual committed destruction on this scale, they'd surely be arrested, and, with their admission of guilt, tried, convicted, and (depending on the state in which the crimes happened) executed.

So why can't we do the same with BP? Nationalize their American assets, freeze every bank account we can reach here and abroad, arrest BP's executives, and liquidate the company? After all, the Supreme Court says that corporations now have the right of freedom of speech!

Nationalize BP. Arrest CEO Tony Hayward, Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg, and any and all managers that had any responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Sell the company's assets on the open market, or take over as the new management. But $20 billion is not enough. Not for a disaster that has the potential to change the face of the Gulf forever.

They shoot murderers, don't they? Nationalize BP.

It's Relative

What is worse: playing golf with your second-in-command during a time of crisis, sailing in a yacht race while your company's oil well fouls thousands of square miles of ocean, or laying a wreath on the graves of hardcore Nazis?

Hint: anything the Democrat and/or the black man does is automatically wrong.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Friday Funnies, Part 3: The Schmuck Of The Week!

OK, so this isn't that funny, except for the reactions. Texas congresscritter Joe Barton (R-Big Oil) apologized to BP executives yesterday, characterizing the Obama administration "of perpetrating a shakedown by pressuring BP to set aside $20 billion to cover expected damages."

TPM, quoting idiot from Texas:
"I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown," Barton said. "I'm only speaking for myself, I'm not speaking for anybody else. But I apologize. I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong, is subject to to some sort of political pressure that is, again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize."
 Notwithstanding the fact that Barton is one of Congress' biggest recipients of Big Oil largess, his comment was particularly tone-deaf in light of the country's anger and frustration at BP, and how the spill is being handled. Of course, the GOP leadership's response was "don't say that shit out loud!" However, in an act typical of GOP hypocrisy, several Rethug members of Congress had already complained about the escrow fund. Also bellyaching were the Wall Street Journal, Erick Erickson of CNN and RedState, Laura Ingraham, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh, to name a disgusting few.

But of course, Barton had to eat his words. "...he (sort of) apologized for apologizing. Then he apologized again, falling on his sword even as party leaders were throwing him under the bus." Barton didn't get the memo: it's ok to criticize Pres. Obama, but for God's sake, don't openly side with the oil companies! "Off with his head!" they cried. So Barton apologized twice, and so far, there are two Republicans who want him to resign his position as the ranking Rethug on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. We'll see how many more jump on the bandwagon by Monday.

Ahh, hell--Jon Stewart did this better than I ever could. I'll let him take it from here:


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Day 59 - Judgment Day - The Strife Aquatic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorTea Party

And there you have it: this week's Schmuck Of The Week, the (dis)honorable Joe Barton!