Whatever happened to Jim Webb?

by Rich Miles

You know, of all the recently-elected liberal or progressive senators, the one who appeared to have the most solid liberal credentials and the most likely to raise some serious leftie hell in the Senate is Jim Webb of Virginia.

While he was a candidate, ol' Jim in essence told the good ol' boys to go fuck themselves, and made it clear that he was going to be his own man and big-biz interests could just screw off, thank you very much.

But since he's been elected? Not so much.

THe only times I've heard of ol' Jim, who does not represent my state, and therefore is not top of mind for me all the time, have been when he's voted for something extremely RIGHT-wing. Like yesterday.

Ol' Jim got not one but TWO chances to be a traitor to his progressive roots yesterday, and by golly, don't you know he took BOTH of them?

First, the vote was taken for the Jobs bill, already passed in the House, and on the spurious grounds of "deficit reduction", the Senate voted it down, including our trusty Mr. Webb. The final tally was 52-45, with every single slimebag anti-American family repug joined by about a dozen supposedly liberal Democrats, including our boy Jimbo.

Then, so as to make it a full day of work, they voted on an amendment introduced by one of the few remaining REAL progressives, independent Bernie Sanders. Here's what ol' Bernie's pretty straightforward amendment allowed: to "eliminate big oil and gas company tax loopholes, and to use the resulting increase in revenues to reduce the deficit and to invest in energy efficiency and conservation." See? Deficit reduction, just like the rationale for not passing the unemployment bill.

But deficit reduction only matters when it can come out of the pockets of ordinary Americans, not corporate "people".

Remember this, America!!! Remember how we were betrayed even by some of those who we had every reason to expect to be our champions, like Jim Webb.

In the interest of accuracy, the two bills mentioned above were NOT literally voted on on the same day. It was within TWO days, not that that really makes any difference to the traitorous thesis of this article.

But see, as so many have been saying for so long, Democrats don't need the repugs to defeat them, when they do such a good job on themselves. If Democrats can't be counted on to be at least somewhere left of the middle of almost every issue, then where is our beloved two-party system left?

In closing, let me mention that John Kerry voted against the Big Oil amendment, and Russ Feingold voted against the Jobs Bill.

Where o where are our liberal champions? If there are any anymore.

I'm getting old, and I'm not sure I can figger this stuff out any more. Are people really this conservative across the board? Do Americans really want their elected reps to vote this way?

Or are our elected reps not even taking our wishes into consideration before they vote, just like always?

Storm the Bastille. I'm tellin' ya, that's what it's eventually gonna come to.

And I'm not even going to MENTION What's-his-name Barton's apology to BP. That one made me a little ashamed to be an American.

Definition of egregious

by Rich Miles

The New York Times today has an editorial that should make your blood boil. It did mine.

I just don't understand the people who not only are able to get away with this, but who actually believe that it's right and proper to do so - who actually believe they are more entitled to these things than the overwhelming majority of the rest of us.

Here's the kicker. Read the whole thing:

"Nonemergency provisions in the (unemployment insurance extension) bill do need to be paid for, including renewal of several generally useful business tax breaks, like the research-and-development tax credit, totaling $32 billion over 10 years. To help cover those costs, Democratic lawmakers in the House and Senate started out with the sound idea to close an egregious tax loophole that allows wealthy fund managers at private equity firms and other investment partnerships to pay a top tax rate of just 15 percent on much of their earnings — versus a top rate of 35 percent for all other higher-income Americans.
"

Here's my perfectly obvious question: Why do the wealthy get the tax breaks? They've got lots of money. That's why they're known as, you know, the wealthy. They've got a lot of money left over AFTER they pay taxes. Usually more after taxes than the overwhelming majority of us will ever see BEFORE taxes are paid.

So when is this going to stop?

How about a little Bastille-storming? Or the 21st-century equivalent thereof?

A New Political Party

by "Not Sure Who Wrote This"

Got this in my email today, and thought it was marginally clever. I don't say I agree 100% with everything said here, but it seems that a good deal of it needs to be said one way or the other. See what you think:
===========================================================

*A New Political Party.*


*Not Democrat, Not Republican, Not Independent, and most definitely not Tea.*

*It's called the “PISSED OFF PARTY" (or POP).*

*This party is dedicated to vote every incumbent out of office in the next elections.*

*If you're Democrat, vote Democrat. Just don't vote for the incumbent.*

*If you're Republican, vote Republican. Just don't vote for the incumbent.*

*We need to send a message to all politicians, that we're tired of their B.S.*

*If the country votes out all the incumbents, the new incoming politicians will get the message..*

*It's pretty simple. Nobody needs to change parties and let’s face it, there's plenty of blame to spread around.*

*A few good politicians will lose their job but they probably have better retirement and insurance than 95% of the American public.*

*You've had to struggle for the last 5 years. Some of you have lost your job and may be working in some other sector just to feed your family.*

*I guarantee you, none of them will suffer like this country has.*

*If you like what's going on and think this is a bad idea, delete this.*

*But if you're fed up and think this is a good idea, then pass this E-mail on.*

*If you really think this has legs, then a website and a blog could help get the word out.*

*To All 535 voting members of the US Congress: it is now official: you are ALL corrupt morons.*

Here's how we know:

*a.. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*d.. The War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.*

*e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.*

*f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.*

*g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.*

*You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.*

*AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? *

*IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT!*


*Folks, keep this circulating.

Unconstitutional

by Rich Miles

You wanna know something? My constitutional rights are being violated. Regularly and egregiously.

Because I am not represented in the US Congress. Not in either House. Nope. My beliefs and wishes are not represented. There are three guys who nominally represent my district - Brett Guthrie, Mitch McConnell, and Jim Bunning. But they don't represent ME.

Because they are idiots, who espouse policies and governmental actions that are abhorrent to me. They are not merely frequently in disagreement with me - they are CONSTANTLY in disagreement with me. I don't remember any of these three guys, or their predecessors, ever doing anything I wanted them to do. It's pretty much 100% when one considers matters of any controversy whatever.

Now, I do understand the concept of democracy - the "majority rules" ideal, and I know that by the very definition of their respective and collective elections, I am in the minority in my congressional district. But geez, don't I EVER get to have a congressional representative who does what *I* think is right?

I can't wait till this November. Maybe a Democrat will slip through the lines, and I'll be at least partly represented. I mean hey, a boy can dream, can't he?

Naaah. This IS Kentucky, after all - the state that competes with Mississippi and Arkansas for the bottom rung of the American economy and educational excellence. I mean, it isn't impossible, but it seems damned unlikely based on history.

So I'll just go on not being represented in Congress. There are several million others like me, after all. And hey, who knows? We could elect a Democrat SOME day. Some how. Can't we?

I mean, can't we?

Why I am a Democrat

by Rich Miles

Way back in the old days, when I was about 18 years old or so, and Richard Nixon was you'll pardon the expression president, I learned all I needed to know about my personal politics by watching Nixon and his compadres in action on national television. I learned that, no matter what else you may be able to say about a Republican, the fact remains that they are mean-spirited, selfish, hateful, and just altogether not nice people. And that they are so un-self-aware that they don't even know it.

And I learned that I didn't want to be like them, and that the only logical way to remain an American but NOT be like them - was to become a Democrat. And so I did.

But in all those years, I tried repeatedly, in essays like this, in letters to the editor and in other fora, to come to a statement of WHY I believe as I do, and I always failed - most often I degenerated into babbling, incoherent fury at the assholes, and couldn't make it really clear what I felt. Sometimes I got partway there but couldn't find the words to really nail it. Sometimes I didn't even get that far.

But I write today because someone has found the words for me. Steve M. has this over at No More Mister Nice Blog:

I suppose it's futile to hope for this, but the left response to the Sestak story should be: Republicans, how dare you. Amid job losses, oil spills, terrorist attacks, and all the other problems we have, you want to bring down a government now, over this? Talk about the criminalization of politics.

But then, Republicans simply don't care about what happens to America. They'd burn America to the ground if it meant they'd rule over the ashes.

I thank Steve immensely for breaking my years of inarticulation. And I rather suspect I'll use this quote again. Accredited, I'm sure.

THAT'S what I really meant to say

When I was about 20 years old, I discovered what I needed to know to solidify my political leanings for (so far) the rest of my life. I discovered that, whatever else one might say about Republicans, they are mean-spirited, lacking in humanity, hateful, and selfish. And don't even know it.

But ever since then, I've been trying to figure out how to say this about Repugs, and how to say in clear, concise terms what it is that so disgusted me about Republicans in general.

And today, after all that searching, and word juggling for all those years (no I will NOT tell you how many), I believe I've found it. Someone else said it, I won't try to claim it as my own, but the following little snippet says what I've meant to say, AS I meant to say it. It's the culmination of a lifetime's search, and Steve M. stated it for me. Here it is:

"

What we should be getting sick of by now.

by Rich Miles

You ever wonder why extreme left-wing pols (like, oh I don't know, Barack Obama among many others) get so squirrely and turn hard-right once they get in office? It happens almost every time, if you wanna take a look back at the last 100 or so years of history. Now why is that, ya reckon? I mean, it isn't as if being right-wing is all that productive a personal philosophy to espouse in the long run. So why is it that so many pols who seem to be lefties aren't so eventually?

Well, I'll tell you - it's because they're bought and paid for by elements of the right - who have more money than God, and can spend it on people who are in a position to make their lives even more comfortable and happy and WEALTHY.

That's it in a nutshell, and if you consider long and hard, or maybe not even so long and hard, you'll see it: all, and I mean ALL of our politicians, and most especially those who campaign as leftwingers, are on the take from rightwing forces beyond our ken and in most cases beyond our control. And until we collectively wake up and cop to this rigged system, and try to do something about it, we're going to continue to see this same system of government in our faces.

You think I exaggerate? You think even the righties in this country couldn't afford to buy that many politicians? Or that there couldn't possibly be that much political will to pay off that many pols, or that there couldn't be that many pols who are that corrupt, that willing to be bought?

Well, you're wrong. On all counts, and probably a few more besides, you're wrong.

Because if you give it a bit of thought, nothing, and I mean NOTHING else makes sense with the set of circumstances under which we live today.

Let me clarify one small point: I am not suggesting that all the left-of-center politicians in this country are literally being bribed with cash in hand. In fact, that particular method of bribery is, while not completely obsolete, probably the least common method.

No, the way most pols are on the take these days is, unfortunately, perfectly legal.

It's called campaign contribution. And it is every bit as much bribery as any bagman-delivered, paper sack full of 100's in the night that any thug ever handed over.

I mean, what else can one call it, when a political boss arranges to deliver 100's of thousands of dollars' worth of cash money to a candidate's campaign, in anticipation that the politician will vote in accordance with the contributor's wante and needs? How is it in any way materially different from bribery, except that it's legal?

And all of our so-called leaders, from the Federal to the hyper-local level, are engaged in the practice, and are proud of it!

So that explains why no one, or nearly no one (Russ Feingold comes to mind, but damn few others) keeps their principles intact beyond the first year or so in office. Especially but not exclusively at the Federal level.

And I'm serious - it's all of them. What we're going to do about it, I cannot say. Just getting rid of them all would create a power vacuum, and might even manage to get rid of a few good ones.

But rid of them is what we need to be. I'm talking about nothing less than an overthrow (a PEACEFUL one) of the entire U.S. government. But if we're going to do it, we'd have to have in place some safeguards to ensure that we wouldn't get another batch of the same bunch of corrupt bastards.

SO what do you make of it? Do you think I'm overstating? I mean, you're wrong, but you're welcome to be so.

We have to do something about this. It'll take a long time to effect it, but we gotta do it. If we don't, we'll live under this yoke forever, as we have so far.

Free Speech

by Rich Miles

I just happened to land on FreeSpeechTV today. It had been rather a long time since I'd looked at it, and I had forgotten how much it quite literally gladdened my heart to watch them and realize that there are still some folks in the world who really honest to gosh DEFEND DEMOCRACY in the world and in the United States.

It sounds like a given, an axiomatic, to defend democracy in the United States. I mean, that's our system of government, our way of life, right? But if you're not already aware that democracy is being kicked in the nuts at every turn, watching this channel will make you so, and will make you want to join them. We have little chance on a day-to-day basis to stand up for genuine democracy, most of us - how often can most of us afford the time and expense of protesting the government's misfeasance and malfeasance? How often can most of us, busy earning our daily bread, go off to parts abroad to make our voices heard on various and sundry topics? And because it's so infrequent that most people can afford the time, it does indeed gladden the heart to see these folks on FSTV really going at it - really digging for the stories and interviews and video that no other station will show us.

Take a look if you haven't before - or even if you have. On Dish Network, it's on Channel 9415. I have no idea where it lies on any other satellite or cable system, but it's abbreviated FSTV, and it's almost certain to be off in that bunch of channels that has the "weird" stuff - in the netherchannels. Which is a statement about how the guardians of our airwaves or cable boxes or satellite systems view the whole concept of free speech - I guess we gotta have it, but let's kinda "hide" it off in a corner somewhere. But if you discover that your TV system doesn't have FSTV, then tell them to get it. Tout de suite.

But in any case, it's worth looking for, and watching once you find it. Get to searchin'.

Opening salvo - almost literally

by Rich Miles

Fella named Timothy Egan, does a little writing for the New York Times from time to time, has pointed out a few early hypocrisies among the tea party lot. Here's what he says - it made me laugh, perhaps it will you too. I think the funniest part is the constituency the Tea Partiers are gonna have to ream up the ass in order to carry out their alleged agenda - it's the constituency that is currently their mainstay. Hoo boy - what an all round goat fuck this is going to be:

Sex, lies, and hypocrisy: does an election day get any more entertaining? And that was before Republicans in Kentucky voted against the advice of the top Republican in Kentucky, and voters in Pennsylvania sent a Democrat to Congress who vowed to take on Democrats in Congress.

First, let’s share one last moment with the day’s diversions. Nothing playing at the local octoplex can match that video of Rep. Mark Souder, the evangelical, family-values Republican from Indiana, giving a lecture on sexual restraint — with his then-secret mistress as the interviewer. He announced his resignation on Tuesday, leaving an homage to high school chastity clubs that should be shown at the Smithsonian, in continuous loop.

At the same time, the Democratic candidate for Senate in Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal, called a news conference to explain how he had “misspoken” in claiming fictional service in Vietnam. Most of us have the same problem. I can swear I played third base for the Red Sox, and hit a dinger over the short fence at Fenway. Or was that whiffle ball with the kids?

If we can make it to November without any more distractions from the pious and the fabulists, it could be a fascinating election. I may be dreaming, but the vote of 2010 might be a mashup for the ages, one of those rare referendums on real stuff.

The Tea Party — that is, the talk-radio-grumpy-old-men wing of the Republican Party — now has some things to answer for, and will have to do more than pose as background for a media narrative on 24-hour cable.

In the Kentucky senate race, those pistol-packin’ partisans who think President Obama was born in Kenya and want government to go away are claiming Rand Paul, who routed the party establishment pick, as one of their own. This is a good development. For who makes up the Tea Party? At their rallies, you see a lot of people on Medicare and Social Security.

Now they have Rand Paul, with his libertarian heritage, to carry the banner. Dr. Paul has promised to fight for “liberty and limited government.”

If we take him at his word, he should move against the biggest obstacles to liberty and limited government in the federal budget: Social Security and Medicare. Since 1966, those two mandatory programs for old people have grown from 16 percent of the federal budget to nearly 40 percent. Medicare now covers about 45 million people. Those deficit-contributing citizens, all those people at Dr. Paul’s rallies with spare time on their hands, would be a logical target.


Jim Wilson/The New York Times

Tea Party supporters rallied in Sacramento on Tax Day, April 15.
After all, is it not socialism to force younger taxpayers to pay for the shortfall on behalf of an expanding pool of older Americans? Doesn’t Ayn Rand’s philosophy hold that Wall Street should be free to run wild, that a national health care system for the elderly is tyranny and that the only way for people to live freely is with “full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism,” as Rand said?

We need to have this discussion; it is the fundamental disconnect among people who call themselves Tea Partiers. Rand Paul is the perfect person to force the issue. His father, Ron, was dismissed as a gadfly when he took fellow Republicans to task for putting a trillion dollars worth of wars on the credit card. Let’s see if the son also rises to fight.

In Washington state, many in the Tea Party are backing a former professional football player, Clint Didier, in the Republican race for Senate. He rails against taxpayer bailouts and encroaching socialism. But he doesn’t hate Big Government enough to refuse at least $140,000 in farm subsidies he’s taken since 1995, or the taxpayer-financed irrigation water that keeps his patch of eastern Washington from being barren.

Where is the Tea Party anger at these mostly red-county, fat-cat freeloaders who’ve been given nearly $250 billion in handouts over the last 15 years? I wait for the credible conservative candidate to make the case that taxpayers should not be stuffing nearly a quarter-trillion dollars into the pockets of people who keep high-fructose corn syrup in the American diet. With Clint Didier in the Senate race, at least we now have a poster child for corporate agriculture bailouts.

Too often, campaigns are about surface abstractions: liberty versus government control, real Americans versus Hollywood. But this year, large events of tragic and ongoing impact have occurred, prompting what should be a much bigger discussion of Real Stuff.

Those who argue for continuing the deregulatory trend of the last decade need to look at how well that worked for the families who lost their loved ones in the Massey coal mine, run by a company with a history of bucking government oversight while promoting politicians who do their bidding.

Those who think drill, baby, drill should be the national energy policy must consider the mortal blow to a marine ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico, because a global oil company didn’t want to spend the equivalent of a day’s profit on adequate controls.

And those who think the incomprehensible form of toxic capitalism that evolved in the snake pits of Wall Street should be left unfettered — in keeping with the emerging Rand Paul wing of the Republican Party and lobbyist-rolled representatives of both parties — should consider an astonishing figure from the Treasury Department.

The financial meltdown cost Americans $17 trillion in lost household net worth between 2007 and 2009, according to Alan Krueger, the chief economist for the department.

“How’s that hands-offey, non-regulatory thing workin’ for ya?” was the stinging tag of a recent cartoon by Stuart Carlson. It was meant as a punchline, but if this election does turn out to be about Real Stuff, it could also serve as a question every candidate will have to answer.

An Opportunity to Learn about Parliamentary Government

by Rich Miles

OK, kiddies - admit it: you've never really understood how the British government worked, and you're not sure you understand it now, either. Well, here's a brief primer, if you care. Now that there are threats of a "hung Parliament", it seems only fitting that we should expand our horizons a bit, and seek to understand how our mother country runs things.

OK - first off, the Brit equivalent of president is the Prime Minister. But here's the trick - the PM is the leader of the party that wins the majority of seats in Parliament. At this point in time, David Cameron of the Conservative Party should technically be PM - but because of this "hung Parliament" thing, he isn't. There's also the fact that the Queen has to ASK the leader of the majority party to form a new government, and so far, Queen Liz has not done so.

No. 10 refers to the Prime Minister's residence, No. 10 Downing Street. When the Queen requests that a party leader form a new government, he immediately moves into No. 10, and starts to make plans for where the government is going. But again, because the Queen has not requested a new government, Gordon Brown, the current prime minister, does not have to move out, and is still technically running things.

Usually, the queen makes her request pretty soon after the election. However, the closeness of this election has apparently slowed her up.

By closeness, we mean Conservatives (Tories) have 306 seats, the Labour party have 258, and the Liberal Democrats ('Lib Dems') have 57. The number needed for an outright majority is 326.

Now here's the rub: because no one party has a majority, the parties have to form a coalition government. But there is no saying what the coalition has to look like. At the moment, the Tories and the Lib Dems are in talks to form a combined majority, or a "coalition", so that there is a majority and something can get done instead of everything getting hung up ('hung') because there is no majority.

But here's the problem: the Labor party is the equivalent, more or less, of our Democratic party, and the Tories are most nearly the same as our Republicans, only without the snottiness most of the time.

So the Lib Dems, who are nearest in philosophy to our far left, liberal-progressive Democrats, are forced to compromise with the Tories, in order to form a majority coalition. They can also form a coalition with Labour, which will ensure a much larger majority.

This is in large part why a new government has not been formed yet.

Now, there is talk that there will be another election later in the year, in order to elect a real majority government, but there's no guarantee that will work either. The longest time between elections is 5 years, and the shortest is apparently just a few months.

In a lot of ways, their system works better than ours, as odd as that may seem right now. But they are only allowed something like 45 days of campaigning, and no TV advertising. Their prime ministers are not glamour boys like our preznits. And No.10 doesn't require as much lawnmowing as the White House.

Anyway, there are lots more differences between the two systems, but these are the main ones. So now you know. Perhaps the news from London will be a bit less confusing now.