Yesterday I stopped in a coffee and donut shop for my daily sugar and caffeine fix; the proprietor was an individual from a Mediterranean country. There was a newspaper on the counter, and I mentioned my thoughts regarding people seemingly getting wise to Tim Eyman’s increasingly unbalanced antics, voting down his latest anti-tax “initiative.” There was a wide screen television on the wall tuned to CNN; the proprietor expressed some dismay that all morning CNN was wasting viewers’ time reporting on Sarah Palin’s latest unbalanced antics. He couldn’t understand why American media wasn’t reporting more on the important issues of the day, like health care, in-house bank robbers and global warming. He didn’t understand why so much time was wasted on politicians who had nothing constructive to say except to complain about Obama; he didn’t understand why the media spent so much time reporting on “news” more fitted for cheap tabloids.

Neither could he understand why Democrats were not emulating Republicans and standing as one on the important issues. Did not people vote for Obama because they wanted change? Why have many Democratic lawmakers not heard this message? They seem to prefer to listen to unhinged fringe elements rather than recognize that something different must be done, and done now. He couldn’t understand why people were not going out on the streets and protesting—not against Obama, but for basic human and labor rights. He noted that in countries like France and Italy, people simply out of habit gathered every once in a while to protest against some perceived infraction on their labor and public welfare rights.

It should be pointed out (again) that right-wing tea-baggers are not out there protesting for their “rights,” but against some perceived black bogey man (Obama) out to “change” things. It seems to me that hate—rather than simple outrage—is the prime mechanism for drawing these people (or anyone) out when uncertainty and confusion gathers in the face of an unknowable future.

Will the Democrats Lose in 2010 (or 2012) Because They Won't Pass Real Financial Reforms?

Yesterday, Elliot Spitzer said that the White House's defense of the financial status quo will give Republicans powerful ammunition in the 2010 elections.

Democratic cheerleader Markos Moulitsas (the "Kos" behind Daily Kos) wrote the following about the Democratic losses in several state elections:

Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

... If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes...

If you forget why you were elected -- ... financial services ... reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home.

People elected Obama in the hope that he would be different from Bush. But in the most important ways, he is just continuing Bush and Clinton's (think repeal of Glass-Steagall) worst policies.

Both the Republican and Democratic party leadership have become lapdops for the big banks and the status quo. Neither are open to real reform or change.

The Democrats haven't broken up the too big to fails. They haven't restored Glass-Steagall. They haven't really reined in credit default swaps. They haven't pushed for honest accounting or forced the giants to put their toxic SIV-hidden assets back on their books.

People are sick and tired of both parties' catering to the big boys. Indeed, given last night's election results and the Dems' utter failure to institute any real financial reform, trend forecaster Gerald Calente's prediction that a third party candidate will win the 2012 presidential election is sounding a little less crazy.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

It seems to me that Thom is right; If the people have a choice between a democrat who acts like a republican, or the real thing, they will choose a republican. Are the leaders of the democratic party too dense to figure that out, or are they all just "two sides of the same coin"?

DDay,

I realize that standing outside Michele Bachmann's office with a picket sign protesting her latest outrage is a full-time job, but does that happen in her district? Is there any "street theatre" that could occur to attract media attention and show the country that not everyone in MN is "down" with this terrorist?

What is Project >Censored<?

Science News:

Yoga And Meditation Change Gene Response To Stress

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/113735.php

Thom,

FYI-

Frank Gaffney was on the Chris Mathews "Hardball" show recently, along with Ron Reagan Jr. Near the end of the segment, Gaffney said to Ron that his father "would be ashamed of his son if he could be here now to hear him. " Reagan became incensed and warned Gaffney that he "better watch your mouth Frank". It was electric and fascinating. Gaffney appeared as if he realized that he had gone too far but only stared like a deer in the headlights. It did provide another example how low and vicious the right can be. They'll even eat the offspring of their heroes trying to score a rhetorical blow. Ron Reagan Jr. has true grit and spine along with a very incisive mind and formidable debate skills. I'd love to know if Gaffney regretted his words or if he thought it was fair?
Regardless, I thought this background might be useful.

Dateline: Washington DC

Leo F. Drummond, (aka Jon Voight) fresh from a Pawlenty PAC Fund-Raiser in Mpls. last night, is speaking at this minute to Teabaggers in front of the Capital at the behest of Michele Bachmann.

About "not buying" --- while I agree with Thom that we won't affect the Corporate Aristocracy by shifting our buying patterns, we CAN do some valuable holding actions by being thrifty and favoring local businesses.

For example, at least half of a family's clothing needs can be fulfilled at thriftstores. The environmental and balance-of-trade costs of goods in thriftstores have already been paid by the goods' first purchase, and the cash paid to the store (usually) circulates locally.

Most suburban lawns can be replaced with fruit trees & other gardening ventures for a multitude of invisible to our corporate aristocracy. Those lucky enough to still be employed can loan out their lawns to the unemployed, and split the produce.

Many Sabbath car trips to church could be accomplished by carpools. Etc. etc.

What these efforts have in common is that, while they don't appear on corporate radar screens, they help us survive the hard times while building community.

I just noticed that Thom's syndicator is feeding ads for Walmart/Sam's Club right along with Thom's show and the Labor Report.

I just want to say that it's a great thing that Thom is able to support the program with funding from the Walton family while continuing to attack them relentlessly!!

"Is Walmart a person? Hell, no!!"

Keep up the good work.

Hey Thom,
FYI I use a Doc in NY that treats with Bio-energy, Homeopathy, & Nutritional Supplements & he's healing all kinds of Chronic Diseases including a whole hosts of Cancers Cleaning out the toxins is the key to helping the body heal, not rocket science !

B Roll,

Thank you. It was more than 3 posts. It was in excess of 30. Speaking of which, is there some way to identify and print out selected posts from the roll? Also, how does someone locate past posts on this blog roll?

Your explanation of Project-Censored is much appreciated. Finally I was hoping for your input and reactions to my one serious piece yesterday. I put some thought into it and had a few observations which I thought might provoke you to comment. (I love a good debate) I remember one assertion which I expected flack for: "The Obama campaign was more about pigment and personality than policies or principals. It appears that this continues today." It got no reaction. Bummer

Hi, Thom;
I am a natural health consultant and I missed the source of the comparison information on medical diagnosis and treatment of cancer between USA and Europe...I thought it was the NYTimes but I can't find the source. This would be an excellent reference for some of my wellness talks that I conduct.

Regards,
Teresa

DDay,

To paraphrase Monty Python, "I came here for an argument." "Sorry, sir, this is abuse!"

Quark,

Funny thing, I came here for stinky cheese. But, hey, I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK.

I hope Thom asks Frank Gaffney if the Religious Right has any impact on on the issue of Gays in the military.
How could this not be a huge factor ? http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2009/04/evangelical-proselytization-s...

TALIBAN = 9/11??
Afghanistan by Hypnosis

Thursday 5 November 2009
by Greg Palast for Zeek.net

On September 11, 2001, my office building, the World Trade Center, was attacked by al Qaeda, a murder cult of Saudi Arabians, funded by Saudi Arabians. And so, in response to the Saudis' attack, America invaded ... Afghanistan. Like, HUH?

And here we go again. New York Times headline last Friday: "Pakistani Army, In Its Campaign In Taliban Stronghold, Finds A Hint Of 9/11."

Google it and you'll find the Times report repeated and amplified 5,785 times more.

Taliban = 9/11. Taliban = 9/11. Taliban = 9/11.

Your eyelids are getting heavy. Taliban = 9/11. Taliban = 9/11.

It's the latest hit from the same crew that brought you Saddam = 9/11 and its twin chant, Saddam = WMD, Dick Cheney's chimerical tropes which the New York Times' Judith Miller happily channeled to the paper's front page.

And they're at it again.

Every war begins with a lie. In addition to Saddam = WMD, I'm old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the war in Vietnam, based on a fictional Vietnamese gunboat attack on our Navy. (White House recordings have Lyndon Johnson gloating privately, "Hell, those damn stupid [US] sailors were just shooting at flying fish.")

In the Glorious War against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the lie is thus: al Qaeda is "based" in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. If we don't fight the wily Taliban, as the British once fought the wily Pathan, al Qaeda will attack America again from Talibanistan.

The latest Taliban=9/11 fantasy is a yarn spun wildly outward from the finding of a passport of an al Qaeda flunky who worked with suicide pilot Mohammed Atta in the same mountain area where, years later, a Taliban group operated. It's a stretch, but when you want to sell a war, it will do.

But selling the re-invasion of Afghanistan requires a repetition of Lie #1: that the original attack on the World Trade towers and the Pentagon were planned from Afghanistan's and Pakistan's mountains with the connivance of the Taliban.

It's not true, of course. The September 11 attack was neither organized nor directed from Afghanistan by the Taliban. In fact, as our BBC Report found, it was clear that the attack on my friends and co-workers was planned and carried out by al Qaeda operations in Falls Church, Virginia; Paris, France; Sarasota, Florida; Hamburg, Germany;— and, I repeat, funded and manned from Saudi Arabia. Neither the Sunshine State nor the Aryan namesake of the original beef patty sandwich were, nor are they now, convenient targets for a revenge attack by the 101st Airborne.

And revenge was what it was and remains: on September 11 the skunks hit us and we, goddamnit, were going to HIT BACK. ANYONE. SOMEONE. So we hit the odious, and conveniently weak, Taliban, who'd, undeniably, given refuge to killer Osama bin Laden. Though let us not forget that Osama's safe passage from the Sudan to Afghanistan was initially encouraged by the US government.

Today, we continue to throw our soldiers' bodies into Afghanistan, and our drones' rockets into Pakistan, to deny al Qaeda the supposed base from which to strike us again.

The media is eating it up and swallowing it whole. For example, CNN quotes a Pakistani from the Afghan border area, "Probably your next 9/11 is going to be from Swat."

That's not true either, of course: In the extraordinarily unlikely event Osama remains in the "caves of Tora Bora" (not where multi-millionaires with kidney disease tend to linger), any conceivable attack will be planned, funded and organized from comfy hotel rooms in Paris, Germany and Dubai as is the habit of these well-heeled hellions.

The truth is, we're not in Afghanistan to stop al Qaeda's US attackers, because they weren't "based" there in the first place, and their leaders are not there now.

So, why are we now re-invading Afghanistan? Beats me. I just hope our President will give us a hint that doesn't involve some cockamamie fairytale about 9/11 and al Qaeda.

Now, please don't get me wrong: the Taliban are monsters. If you have any doubt, I suggest you read progressive journalist Michael Griffin's masterful history of the Taliban, Reaping the Whirlwind. (Published in early 2001, Griffin presciently warned against the US policy of placating the Taliban.)

Undeniably, the Taliban gave sanctuary to the killer, but that does not make the Taliban guilty of planning and participating in the 9/11 attack. However, the Taliban's innocence in the 9/11 massacre does not wash their hands of the blood of Afghans, particularly Shia and Sufi Muslims, whom the Taliban have tortured, raped and murdered.

I can't say I shed tears for the Taliban when, after my office towers fell, US troops ended their sharia dictatorship. And, honestly, there's a case to be made that rocketing more Taliban, really nasty cutthroats that they are, is a laudable exercise. But let's not pretend it has anything to do with preventing another 9/11.

And that's the danger. As the poet T.S. Eliot warned,

"The last temptation is the greatest treason
To do the right thing for the wrong reason."

Taliban = 9/11? Innocents, by the thousands and thousands, have paid and will pay in blood for this treasonous falsehood.

Institutionalized xenophobia is a piss-poor and heinous reason to inflict curtailed human rights on any flesh and blood human being.

If your last guest was the best that the gay-haters have to offer, I'd say that they know they've lost.

She didn't even have the manners to say, "Thank you for having me on your program." Thom was very patient when she tried to filibuster, reading off paragraphs of stuff and refusing to answer questions.

Thanks for providing a good example. I don't know if I have the patience. Maybe I should try vegitarianism?

Wow! I would email that woman Thom just had on to talk about gays in the military, but I didn't catch her name or organization. She was just a rude homophobe!

Exposure to gay folk causes irrational fear and soldiers are so woosey that they can’t handle fear!

AND that’s her ‘rational” excuse for excluding gay folk?

Excuse me . . . but WTF!!!!!

Frankly, I'm a big fan of guys and gals showering together . . .

I've been in that stall....just curious......it's a local attractiion.....awash in history...and then giggled.

@ Quark

Yes.... Click on Wed from home page, then scroll down to Thurs. Nov.5th. yes I know that it doesn't make sense to find Thursday on Wednesday's Posts, but, that has been going on lately.

Here is a question for those that can’t seem to tolerate gay couples getting the same rights as every other committed couple let alone being married. Would they support an amendment to DOMA or a stand alone law that denies marriage benefits to those people that get divorced? Primarily with respect to the US tax code and benefits that are given to married couples? I don’t believe divorce should be outlawed as there are compelling reasons not to stay with a person, but as a society we could certainly make marriage worth the paper it’s written on. Make the promise of until death do us part have consequences.

rewinn,

History! You think she knows anything about history?!