Green Eagle

Oh, Denny, how could you?  And by the way, I wonder how many of us have committed evil acts that we would be willing to pay $3.5 million dollars to keep quiet?  Me, I think I'd keep the money; after all, the statute of limitations was up long ago. Okay, I've had my laugh.  Now I want to talk about why Democrats can not afford to let this story go; particularly coming on the heels of the almost unbelievable tale about those Conservative icons of morality, the Duggar family.  These two incidents, and the endless similar ones that keep coming to light about Republican politicians, demonstrate a simple fact: the claims that they inevitably make to be the party of morality and decency are complete lies, just like everything else they ever say.  In fact, they do whatever they damned please, whenever they want to, and count on a compliant press, and fellow party members, who don't give a damn as long as they can win elections, to ignore the fact.  The Republican...

I'm on the road again, off to a show in Louisiana, so that will disrupt my posting for a couple of days. In the meantime, try this: Back soon.

A good article from Mike Konczal in the Nation (via Digby) discussing the changing narrative in this country about the economy: "I come to bury centrism, not to praise it. Discussions of the economy during the 2016 campaign will look very different from those of the past two elections, because centrism as an ideological force has collapsed.   An optical illusion has shielded centrism from critique. Centrists position themselves as anti-ideology, representing a responsible compromise between liberals and conservatives. The word conjures sobriety and restraint, caution and moderation—all of which sound compelling in uncertain economic times.   But institutionalized centrism is more than that: It's an elite group of thinkers and writers, popular in Washington, DC, and favorable to business leaders, who told a very specific story about what was happening during the Great Recession." I bring this up, not just because I think there is a very good chance that it is ...

Here is a very clear statement of the Conservative view of poverty in this country.  As is my habit, I will not link to it; and in this case, I will not even identify the author of this grotesque document.  I hope you will trust me when I tell you that it really exists.  I must warn you that my efforts to comment on it fall far short of the condemnation that it, its author, and the many people that believe such things, deserve. "US suffering from massive equality of rich and poor   Propaganda is about telling a good story. So when the media wants to tell a story of how the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer, they ignore incovenient facts, such as the value of the various federal, state, and local transfer payments, as well as the value of charitable contributions from private groups such as soup kitchens." Soup kitchens.  Yes, when "the media" want to tell you how badly the poor have it, they ignore the contribution of soup kitchens ...

Today's Wingnut Wrapup (dis)respectively dedicated to Congressman Louie Gohmert, for coming up with the ultimate Republican answer to the question, "knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq:" “Everybody else wants to ask that question of, ‘Gee, would you have gone into Iraq if you’d known what you know now?’ And I think if President Bush had known that he would have a total incompetent follow him that would not even be able to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq and start helping our enemies and just totally put the Middle East in chaos, then he would have to think twice about doing anything if he had known he would have such a total incompetent leader take over after him. That should be the question.” Thanks, Obama.  And let's just serve up a large helping of total contempt for the vicious, disgusting assholes in Texas who put this man in Congress. And I want to continue out with something that is not at all funny, but you are going ...

Iraq. Remember Richard Clarke?  He was Clinton's national security coordinator.  After Bush was elected, he begged him to pay more attention to Al Qaida.  Bush told Clarke to fuck off, and we knew what happened.  Once again, there is nothing that gets you eliminated from consideration as a serious voice on national affairs, like being right. Well, here's Clarke today, on MSNBC: "...all the stuff we're seeing today -- the rise of ISIS, the disintegration of the state in Iraq, the disintegration of the state in Syria, I think is directly connected to our invasion...We destroyed the state. This is what happens when you destroy a state. You have chaos, you have the rise of factions, regional and ethic factions," he continued. "And I think you can look at that decision and say that's the reason hundreds of thousands -- probably a couple of million if you add it all up -- people have been killed." Not Obama.  Not weak-on-defense liberals.  No, the...

And while I am on the subject, can I remind people that Dick Cheney made a personal profit of $40 million dollars from "no-bid," i.e. corrupt, contracts, which he awarded his own company while he was Vice President?  As far as I know, there has never, ever, in the entire history of the United States, been an example of blatant criminality in a Presidential administration that compares in any way to that, either in the massiveness of the amount or in the blatant disregard for any fig-leaf of legality.  And yet, no one seems willing to call this monstrous abuse of power what it is. Cheney should have been imprisoned for this alone, but it pales to virtual insignificance compared to his other wrongdoing while in office.