Oil.

My take on the Iraq mess is that 'W' has blown a hole in the middle east that is going to take at least two generations, if not longer, to repair, if it can ever be fully repaired. I fear that the US is not going to be able to fully withdraw, and when we try (and we will try, if not in the next two years, then as soon as we can elect a real president) we will fail. I pray that we are not laying the foundation for World War III.

My hope lays with a few intelligent politicians and leaders that can take control of this mess and clean it up. With Hillary not yet addressing the issue with any concrete proposal -- even refusing to state the obvious: we were lied to by this president -- and none of the other way-too-early presidential candidates saying anything of substance, I look to the few who are willing to open themselves up to the rightwingnuts and their incessant griping. Joe Biden's piece in the Boston Globe is one of the more sound, reasonable plans that anyone has proposed across the political spectrum. And of course, this means that Gary Gross has to slam it.

If the oil revenue sharing plan recently passed by Iraq's parliament is our great hope, we are in trouble. Some oil revenue sharing plan:

the Iraqi Government’s approval of the ‘Iraq Oil Law‘ has opened the door to a dismantled Iraq along sectarian fault lines, allows Big Oil corporations carte blanche to the world’s third largest proven oil reserves... [which] provides the required momentum for the dismantling of Iraq and the further destabilization of the entire middle east region.

Watch for the rapid disembowelment of Iraq and the creation of Shiastan, a Kurdish Republic and a sidelined Sunni state. The Iranians will annex and fold southern Iraq - Shiastan - into the Islamic Republic of Iran. Turkey will follow through with their promise of conflict against an emboldened Kurdistan in northern Iraq. The Sunnis will be left with nothing but a poor central region and one hell of a chip on their shoulders.

-http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/opinionist/2007/feb/27/bush_genius_iraq_softened_gutted_ready_for_oil_vultures

But the best quote from Gary's piece, "Iraq is a soveriegn nation" is a little more than 4 years too late. The level of violence, according to Stars and Stripes remains at "the highest level since major combat operations ended" yet, "The Defense Intelligence Agency estimates that less than 10 percent of insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters, and the majority of those are suicide bombers." Translation: the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions are fighting more vigorously than ever. Where's the room, or in Gary's words, what is the "incentive" for them to work together?

Gary Gross is the epitome of what is wrong in this country. Fighting keyboardists have no knowledge of what makes the middle east tick, no understanding of what we're up against, and no real solution to propose. Evidence: they still think that Saudi Arabia is our friend. They still think we can "defeat the terrorists" without defining (understanding?) who the terrorists are. The rightwingnuts think that blaming liberals is the answer to every problem this country faces.

I have some news for them: it wasn't just the Republic party that was attacked on Sept. 11. It was all of us.

Two Birds with One Stone

CalCon poster The Gentle Cricket thinks its really cool to waste gas, time and blood to drive across the country. How fitting; a drive-a-thon from San Francisco to Washington DC to support our troops fighting for our right to the oil under Iraq's sand. When we're beginning to understand the concept of blood for oil, it is only appropriate that support would be shown in a manner consistent with the rationale behind the war.

Assuming that the average passenger vehicle gets 22 miles per gallon, the shortest route is 2840 miles, that's 129 gallons of gas, minimum. Since the war is ongoing, we don't yet know the ratio of blood lost to barrel of oil, but in a perverse sense, wasting gas like this actually pushes the ratio lower, i.e., fewer soldiers killed per gallon of gas burned.

Wow, not only supporting the troops, but rubbing the ol' thumb in the eye of global warming alarmists. Well done!

Liars, Damn Liars and Statisticians

What do you call someone who has worked for a political campaign? And what do you call someone who has donated the personal maximum allowable amount to political campaigns? And what do you call someone involved in an scheme to avoid public revelation and discourse on a consultancy contract awarded to a private firm but paid for with public dollars?

That's right, a partisan hack, potentially engaging in criminal behavior. Now, if I were to tell you that the hack worked for a democratic congressman, donated large sums to liberal causes, and was involved in a cover up of a contract awarded to a left-leaning organization, you'd dismiss their opinions and research as bunk without further consideration.

But Davis Lundy, head of the Moriah Group and who commissioned this poll, worked for the campaign to elect Congressman Zach Ramp (R-TN), is on the public record of donating thousands of dollars to Republicans and conservative causes, and is up to his eyeballs in an educational board scandal, and is (without further research, I won't say a conspirator) implicated in violation of Tennessee's Sunshine Law as part of a group that withheld information from voting members of a school board "to avoid public debate."

The poll itself was conducted by a firm named Public Opinion Strategies that makes no bones about being Republican, and shreds their objectivity at first glance with the headline PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES MOURNS REPUBLICAN LOSSES, CONGRATULATES MANY INDIVIDUAL WINNERS IN TOUGH RACES in a prime spot on their homepage. An analysis of the poll, says David E. Johnson of Strategic Vision (a Republic polling firm themselves, ahem...) shows it was "leading and designed to elicit the answers they got."

Pure bunk. So much for this talking point.

Read more here and here.

Oh, that Sam Johnson

CalCon, quick to quote any rightwingnut who supports his position, cites Sam Johnson's (R-TX 3rd) speech before the House on Friday evening. Would this be the Sam Johnson who abused his (former) position on the House Ways and Means committee to have the IRS "investigate" the books of a non-profit organization, the Texans for Public Justice after they alleged campaign contribution irregularities against disgraced (and thankfully former and soon to be convict) House leader Delay?

Of course, the investigation turned up absolutely no inproper accounting or filings by the TPJ. Meanwhile, Delay has been indicted and faces trial for his illegal activities.

Of course, this is the same Sam Johnson who offered to drop not one but two nuclear bombs on Syria back when Bush was lying to the American people about WMD in Iraq.

And the same Sam Johnson who doesn't actually live in his home district -- he just rents an apartment there so that he could be elected!

Oh yeah, that hero.

And Conservatives Don't Support Our Troops, Either!

Crazy Clark Baker uses a nifty modified Uncle Sam postage stamp to invite Liberals to move to Canada under the inflammatory headline Liberals DON’T Support Our Troops, which given the circumstances is quite ironic.

Baker points to another right-wing hack, Joan Swirsky of The New Media Journal, a self-described "conservative leaning" website that publishes what "pundits" have to say (their word, not mine, I swear!). Swirsky last wrote about the pathology of liberals, which is in and of itself funny, but interestingly attempts to tie mental illness to liberalism. Apparently, Swisky and Baker have not researched this topic even superficially, as they'd quickly find the link between mental illness and conservative thought:

The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election... [The study] found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

But its not just Bush, per se: its the ideology as evidenced:

A 1977 study... found psychiatric patients preferred Nixon over McGovern in the 1972 election.

Not satisfied to draw a simple line from point "A" to "B", I dug deeper. I was startled to find that the United States is the craziest country on the planet! Not just by a little bit, but heaping doses of crazy! The closest competitor for crazy is the Ukraine, a full 5 points behind us! Who-hoo (as Homer Simpson would say). David Podvin points to the clear link between mental illness and conservatism:

Rather than educating himself on major issues of life and death by studying, George W. Bush faithfully listens to the voices in his head that have been keenly honed during a lifetime of not studying. Bush takes this approach based on his deeply held belief that only by remaining abjectly ignorant of all relevant facts can he possibly make a fully informed decision. His commitment to prioritizing fantasy over reality is strong and unyielding.

...

The W.H.O. awarded America numerous insanity bonus points for the insistence by our Holy Rollers that the bible must be interpreted literally. The English word “gay” doesn’t mean what it meant just a few decades ago, yet American zealots insist that the meaning of words translated from six thousand year old Hebrew can be defined with precision and should be used to justify persecuting human beings.

...

Projection is a component of mental illness that consists of attributing one’s own deficiencies to others.

Podvin uses the example of Rush Limbaugh to illustrate this point, but his article was written some time ago, at least before Rush appeared in a "comedy" skit on Fox Noise set in January, 2009, wherein he was elected president and his opponent, Howard Dean, was finally getting the "help he needed"... which is just ripe. A drug-addled, impotent tub of lard saying anyone else needs help...

But back to Baker's posting. Talk about projection of one's deficiencies to others! Through the use of Swisky's premise, Baker imagines what various well-known liberals would say to a cancer victim (funny, that was the premise behind another skit on the painfully bad Fox show; maybe this is a conservative thing, making fun of cancer patients?), and gosh, it sure is funny! While I could similarly entertain what some prominent conservatives would say, I find it childish to engage in that type of tit-for-tat.

Baker's problem, however, is that he fails to see the breakdown in logic that Sworski's article proposes: that the troops will be demoralized by the House resolution supporting them, but not Bush's tactical surge, but then goes on to say that you couldn't demoralize the troops even if you tried, they're such fierce warriors. Well, which is it?

Here's the crux of the matter, however. Conservatives don't support the troops, either. For instance, what about care for the wounded veterans? Dana Priest exposes the care at Walter Reed:

On the worst days, soldiers say they feel like they are living a chapter of "Catch-22." The wounded manage other wounded. Soldiers dealing with psychological disorders of their own have been put in charge of others at risk of suicide.

Disengaged clerks, unqualified platoon sergeants and overworked case managers fumble with simple needs: feeding soldiers' families who are close to poverty, replacing a uniform ripped off by medics in the desert sand or helping a brain-damaged soldier remember his next appointment.

"We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it," said Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months. "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

...

Evis Morales's severely wounded son was transferred to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda for surgery shortly after she arrived at Walter Reed. She had checked into her government-paid room on post, but she slept in the lobby of the Bethesda hospital for two weeks because no one told her there is a free shuttle between the two facilities. "They just let me off the bus and said 'Bye-bye,' " recalled Morales, a Puerto Rico resident.

Morales found help after she ran out of money, when she called a hotline number and a Spanish-speaking operator happened to answer.

"If they can have Spanish-speaking recruits to convince my son to go into the Army, why can't they have Spanish-speaking translators when he's injured?"

Because, Evis, how that your son has done his part for the USA, he can rot. Kanye West wasn't right when he said "George Bush doesn't care about black people." What he should have said was "conservatives don't care about anyone but themselves."

Case in point and on target to this example:

House Republican leadership had removed [GOP] Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey as chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. The extraordinary purge buttressed the growing impression of arrogance as Republicans enter their second decade of power in the House.

The party's House leaders purportedly removed Smith, a tireless promoter of spending for veterans, to save money....

The leadership's problem with Smith has been his insatiable desire to make life better for veterans during 24 years on the Veterans Affairs committee (six years as vice chairman, four years as chairman).

No, that's not some quote from any liberal or even friend of left-leaning causes... it's none other than Robert Novak! If that's what a friend says about you, you know you've got problems.

Supporting the troops means more than putting a yellow ribbon bumper sticker on your SUV. It's more than finally providing armor and equipment to the troops. Its about not frivolously tossing American blood and treasure at some neocon idealogue's dreams of world dominance.

No George Bush and the conservatives got us into this mess. But here's my startling request: please, continue. You're guaranteeing Hillary in the White House in '08.

Maybe somebody then will mock up an old recruitment poster, saying "Conservatives! I Want You to Move to Mexico!" You see, I doubt Canada would take you.

The Results of a Conservative Education?

Amy P. once again posts some crap about how Democrats are evil but misses a critical fact... that the majority of the Senate wants to go on record opposing Bush's 'surge' but in a tactic suggested by Newt "I am the Government" Gingrich, the minority filibustered the debate on the measure.

Oh Amy, you are so... misinformed. But what do you expect, you quoted Fox Noise. The vote for cloture (which is the process by which the Senate votes to close discussion and proceed to a debate, a parlimentary trick and one that is sure to make Newt Gingrich happy) was, at 56-to34:

...four short of the 60 needed to advance the nonbinding measure. The resolution is identical to one recently passed by the house.

Seven GOP senators broke ranks, compared with only two joining in an earlier test on the issue but it wasn't enough.

So, proving that Amy has trouble understanding how our government works, her calculations were wrong, and more importantly, as a result were misleading. There were 56 senators that voted to bring the non-binding resolution before the Senate, but due to this parlimentary maneuver, the minority of the Senate, the Republicans, were able to prevent going on the record as to their committment to the President. That means that, aside from Joe Lieberman, every Democrat voted to debate the issue, and 7 Republicans crossed the party line.

So, in fact, the majority of the Senate wanted to debate the issue; it was 34 disgracefully petulant and unpatriotic Republicans that prevented what the American people want: an open and honest discussion about Iraq, and a movement to bring it to a conclusion.

By your logic (not to mention reality), perhaps the mandate Speaker Pelosi has is from the majority of the country. Maybe the Congress should wake up a realize this fact.

Disingenuous at Best

CalCon is on another rampage, impuning democrats and liberals integrity. Today's rant involves the House resolution supporting the troops and denouncing Bush's 'surge.' Predictably, CalCon chimes in saying the Dems are treasonous for passing a non-binding resolution.

Firstly, this is the same old crap CalCon's been spouting since before the midterm elections. In case you didn't notice, your side lost becuase it is fundamentally wrong. The Iraq war was started without merit, Bush lied, and the American people have awoken to this fact.

Second, I think CalCon is just upset that John Murtha got sick and tired of the republican method of governing: hamstring an issue around emotional topics with which no one can argue (or be called every name from unpatriotic to treasonous), obscure the debate in rhetoric, and walk to victory. Murtha is simply borrowing your methods.

Finally, this is no "low point" and your accusation "No one in their right mind thinks that Democrats have a conscience beyond a desire for acquiring and increasing power" in the context of this posting is, plainly, an admission of your modus operandi en large.

Of course, this is what republicans do best. Whine on!

Michael Crichton Causes Global Warming

What's with CalCon's wood for Crichton this week? This is like the third or fourth time CalCon's cited him. Either he's the only critic of global warming out there, or Gary has some strange fascination with this guy who is best known for works of fiction, thinks that he's had paranormal experiences, and uses characters in his books to mock his critics. Nevermind that his rationale for criticizing global warming is based on an assumption that he is the Galileo of our era.

What he fails to address (and by extension, CalCon too) is a very basic question: whom does our current use of fossil fuels benefit, and who does it harm? Do we want to send our dollars to Iran and Venezuela, or do we want to put our resources behind developing alternative, clean fuel that can be grown or made right here in the USA? And what about the potential for our enemies to do it first? Talk about homeland insecurity!

Imagine if the Middle East didn't matter to us. Let 'em fight amongst themselves. Imagine if Hugo Chavez's funding dried up, and he no longer had a world stage to stand upon and castigate us. Imagine the money to be made if the US developed a fuel that could be sold to the rest of the world, making our trade deficit disappear and ensuring American dominance for the next hundred years.

The Pathology of Conservatives

CalCon posts another of his wacked-out buddy's rants, claiming liberals are pathological.

Interesting.

Likewise:

at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

...these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination.

Conservatives fear change because they are unable to see the world through an open lens.

Of particular note, conservatives are xenophobic:

The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views...

A basic tenet of human psychology is a desire to propagate the self as being more influential, intelligent and important then other individuals. In many cases this results in forming rigid ties to one's own group and therefore, through the strength of the group, increase the sense of self of the individual. While this effect is seen across all groups, conservative groups are influenced by religious beliefs that offer the individual a complete metaphysical framework presented with such simplicity that a 5 year old can understand the basic laws of the universe. This results in the conservatives’ conflict with science. Science is constantly growing from one idea to the next based on continual testing. This resulted in a system of thought that does not want the established thought of the 19th century found unsupported by the evidence to pervade current rationale. Conservatives desire to preserve the past have come in to conflict with this form of thought.

Conservatives, such as Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan, all have another common thread: thinking they're better than everyone else:

...right-wing conservatives ...preach a return to an idealized past and condone inequality in some form... one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position.

And as for thinking outside of the box:

...intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes.

For example, if you take a look at the country by zip code and break it down along income and wealth lines, the richer an area the more likely it is to be conservative and Republican. Children born into this stratified world lack the capabilities of understanding that they have been born into wealth, and instead, look at the poor and not understanding how others may have been disadvantaged from day one, think they are less intelligent, less educated, and lazy. "If only they'd work harder!" conservatives think. Yet, conservatives revile the government when it attempts to level the playing field, and would rather donate huge sums of money to political causes that prevent those less fortunate from succeeding.

But such circular (and faulty) logic doesn't end there. Conservatives like to start wars in order to push their world-view on everyone, which in turn, results in a swing to conservativism:

right-wing populism may have more consistent appeal than left-wing populism, especially in times of potential crisis and instability

which creates a continual state of war. Sound familiar?

And so the question boils down to, do you want to take the conservative approach (be afraid, run from challenge, conform to a forced position -- live under totalitarian rule, in other words -- or take the liberal approach, live free, exercise personal liberty, and enjoy life -- live under democratic rule, in other words?

Thanks, I'll choose freedom.

Conservatives seem incapable of grasping the nature of our Consitutional Republic with its uncertainties (hence, constant fear mongering) , conflicts (hence, the need to put others down in a vain attempt at making themselves feel superior), and vagarities (hence, the constant charge that judges are writing their views into law rather than the messy, complicated and uncertain work in interpreting the Constitution).

And you call liberals pathological.

Read more here, and here.

I Suppose She Shouldn't Get an Office, either...

I knew California Conservative wouldn't be able to resist putting the talking points up. So, in fairness, let's set the record straight.

First, Pelosi did not make this request; the House Seargant at Arms did. That Pelosi is second in line to the presidency, it is imperitive that she be protected to the same standards that Speaker Hastert was.

Statement from House Sergeant At Arms Bill Livingood, Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the House:

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Second, Mrs. Pelosi's time is exremely valuable. If she can avoid the landing cycle time required to refuel, it is worth the government's time and people's money to save those lost hours.

Third, if you're going to say that it is a waste of taxpayer's money to provide a plane to the Speaker of the House, I'l say you should have thought of that before we dumped a trillion dollars (and counting!) in Iraq Speaker Hastert flew Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) back to Washington to appear in a press conference regarding disgraced ephebophile Foley 9/11! 9/11! Look over here!.

Finally, when are you going to stop letting the Moonies set the national agenda? Is this even worth the time to discuss?

Now back to our regularly scheduled Republican whining...

Gore, Limbaugh nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

CalCon has got to be kidding. Comparing Rush with Vice President Gore? It's not a comparison between apples and oranges; it's more like comparing an egg and a pig. Rush Limbaugh isn't even qualified to shine Al Gore's shoes. And it is beneath Gore that there is even this way to draw any comparison.

Al Gore has a list of accomplishments longer than your arm.

Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addled hypocrite incapable of thinking about anything besides where his next meal is coming from, and a way to blame the media for whatever crosses his mind (and I use the word "mind" loosely here).

Al Gore spearheaded the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, laying the groundwork for the modern internet. Gore's oft-quoted and lampooned "creator of the Internet" remark not withstanding, the blogosphere owes its very existance to Gore.

Rush Limbaugh's contribution to the technology sector? He sells trinkets on the internet, runs a pay-for-access website from which his innacurate, misleading, and bloviating spreads far and wide, and reaches a huge, largely conservative radio show audience where it becomes difficult to know whether he's talking about current events or selling mattresses.

Al Gore sits on the board of the Apple Computer, is a senior advisor to Google, and has now created the Alliance for Climate Protection which boasts numerous republican board members, including Brent Scowcroft, national-security adviser to presidents George H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford, Lee Thomas, EPA chief under Ronald Reagan, and Teddy Roosevelt IV, venture capitalist and great-grandson of his namesake.

Rush Limbaugh mocked Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons Disease affliction, exposing his lack of empathy (at best), and willingness to exploit anything for radical right wing ideology, laying bare his total lack of morality. At least it helped influence the November elections, sweeping Democrats back into power.

At least Gary Gross understands the fact that Limbuagh stands absolutely no chance of winning the Nobel, while Al Gore is a serious contender. I guess he'll have to rush to Norway after he attends the Oscars, where his film An Inconvenient Truth is up for best documentary.