Oooh, nuance!

First, the good.

Woooohooooo!

Same-sex couples in California get marriage licenses
By LISA LEFF – 12 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California has become the second state to allow same-sex marriages.

A landmark California Supreme Court ruling overturning bans on gay marriage went into effect at 5 p.m. Monday and clerks in at least five counties began handing out gender-neutral marriage licenses.

At San Francisco City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom was presiding at the wedding of lesbian rights activists Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84.

Same-sex couples were also tying the knot in Sonoma, Los Angeles, Yolo and Alameda counties.

Massachusetts is the only other state where gay marriage is legal.

This is just so, so wonderful. It is reprehensible that we still treat LGBT people as though there is something wrong with them. What is the legal basis for denying people who are attracted to the same sex civil rights? Why, none of course! It's just good, old-fashioned, institutionalized bigotry.

I know the wingnuts are going to try to stop it, but really, wingnuts, may I ask a question?

Why don't you pay attention to your own marriages and leave other peoples' alone?

Otherwise some people might think you, yourselves, are self-loathing gay people trying to prevent other, more self-aware types from having the happiness you can't allow yourselves to have.

Just sayin'.

Now...the bad. Iowa is flooded and in big trouble, and we are looking at possible levee breaks as well as more water shortages.

Officials pleaded with Iowans to remain patient, and warned of serious health hazards even in areas were waters had largely receded: leaking sewage, mould and contaminated food and water.

"Please bear with us, we're doing the very best we can," mayor Kay Halloran said, according to the Cedar Rapids Gazette newspaper.

The state has mobilised 4,000 National Guardsmen, and the federal government has sent $3.6m in disaster aid.

In Cedar Rapids, flooding has caused $750m to $1bn in damage, governor Chet Culver said.

At the southern end of the state, the swollen Mississippi river is expected to crest today or tomorrow, promising days of further misery for people kept from their homes. In Burlington and Keokuk, crews worked to build up levees that could hold back the surging river.

The federal government predicts that 27 levees could potentially overflow along the Mississippi river if rains continue and a massive sandbagging effort fails to raise the level of the levees, the Associated Press.

This is terrible enough, but as usual, the media is not connecting the dots. Those billions of dollars in damages do not just encompass houses, schools and hospitals, although losing them is awful. What is really scary is how much food has been lost - and how much continues to be lost.

Acres of soybeans lost: 2 million

Acres of corn lost: 1.3 million

Tillable acres of farmland under water: 16 percent of the state's 25 million acres.

What does that mean? More pain for the American wallet, already straining to afford gas that rises an average of 25 cents a week. (My theory on gas, by the way, is that BushCheney has an exact figure at which they will stop the oil prices from going up any further. My guess is $5/gallon. Certainly this state of affairs cannot continue, or the U.S. economy will simply collapse.)

Okay, that's the bad. Now, for the ugly.


[original photo: New York Times]

Was this really necessary, on the same day that Al Gore finally endorsed Barack Obama?

The Obama campaign announced today what had long been suspected: Hillary Clinton's former campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was going to work for the Illinois Democrat. What came as a surprise was Solis Doyle's title, "chief of staff to the vice presidential candidate."

The move was seen as shrewd but potentially controversial. Solis Doyle was let go by Clinton because of what was widely regarded as poor campaign and financial management. But she still is a prominent Hispanic figure with ties to the former first lady -- attributes that could endear Obama to a sought-after political constituency.

One thing the move does suggest, insiders believe, is that Hillary Clinton's chances of being tapped for the vice presidency are now slim to nil.

"This alone means that Hillary won't be the V.P. choice," wrote one.

Ya think?

Despite the story's spin, there is nothing "shrewd" about hiring Solis Doyle. She is the one largely held responsible for the "We'll win by Super Tuesday" strategy that had Senator Clinton front-loading her money and resources and gave Obama his advantage in red-state caucuses. Explain to me how hiring someone who was fired for incompetence is "seen as shrewd?" As for the Hispanic issue, I doubt Ms. Solis Doyle is any more adept at community outreach than she was at campaign management.

No, this is a pure, balls-out, Chicago-style middle finger from Obama to Clinton. And yes, I do believe it finally puts the nail in the coffin of the pipe dream that Hillary will be Obama's VP.

I have said for weeks now that Obama will not ask her. If he had any intentions of doing so, he would not have conducted his campaign in such a nasty and immature manner. This thuggish, pointless theft is just the icing on the cake.

Hillary Clinton's response?

“Patti will be an asset and good addition to the Obama campaign. After nearly two decades in political life, she brings with her the ability to tap an extensive network that will be a huge asset to Senator Obama. As Senator Clinton has said, we’re all going to do our part to help elect Senator Obama as the next President of the United States," said spokesman Mo Elleithee.

You tell me. Which one has the grace, the class and the maturity to be our President? The man who takes every opportunity to rub his opponent's face in her "loss"? Or the woman who does everything she can to try to heal the wounds her opponent caused her, her supporters and her Party?

Unless Hillary is the nominee, there will be no Party unity. Barack Obama will see to that.

P.U.M.A.!

Apparently some Obama bloggers think it's just fine and dandy too.

Just check out a bit of the New Democratic Manifesto written (and I use the term loosely) by Obama blogger Chris Bowers at Open Left yesterday:

Oh, Chris, Chris, Chris.

I'm finding it hard to get by the first words of that paragraph, "Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives." Personally, as a middle-class, Jewish woman with a Master's Degree, I was unaware that I was a Bubba. And as a professional singer and web designer, I was also unaware of how uncreative I was compared to self-important, penilely-endowed Obama FanBoiz who practice illiterate and ahistorical mutual masturbation in their tiny echo chambers all day.

But I digress. On to Plutocracy. Sieg heil!

As for the Southern Dems part, the author is referring to Bill Clinton and his coalition, as other portions of his post make clear. Mr. Bowers is too busy being creative with history to realize that the South was only a part of President Clinton's coalition, of course. Pennsylvania? Ohio? Anyone? Bueller?

But my favorite part is the "Liebercrat elite" phrase. Didn't you know, my dear deluded soul, that the Liebercrat elite is supporting Obama? Or have you missed that the Party bigwigs have all bypassed the more progressive candidate and are lined up solidly behind the one with the most Wall Street backing? Didn't you know that Obama's mentor in the Senate was Joe Lieberman?

And as for calling yourself and your fellow Obama bloggers "creative class types," my friend, we who are actually creative don't consider ourselves any kind of class at all. We are laughing AT you, not WITH you.

On to the next atrocity.

In other words:

You know, I thought that when Hillary's campaign said, "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool," that it was quite unnecessarily unPC and somewhat offensive. Turns out, she was right. All it took was a wink and a nod from a Kewl Kid (added to a healthy dose of Hillary Hate) to turn the Obama bloggers into sycophants, ready to love and justify anything Obama says and does. Oh, yes, the Dear Leader is always, always right! Sieg heil!

All right, I admit haven't gotten to the Sieg Heil part yet. I'm just so offended by the parts before it that I keep getting distracted. But finally, here it is as Bowers concludes his Beloved - and his bloggy followers, of course - will be the ones to lead the Plutocratic - I mean, New Democratic - Party.

Oh.

My.

G.

The Democratic Party never focused on the white working class. They focused on the WORKING CLASS, PERIOD.

Democrats passed the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act. Jimmy Carter tried to get us off of foreign oil and on to solar energy. Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act. They got women and AA's the right to vote. They got us the 40-hour work week. In more recent history, Bill Clinton created tens of millions of jobs. He kept us from fighting unnecessary wars and forced the Democrats to balance the budget. He tried to give us universal health care. Is Bowers so monumentally stupid that he thinks these laws and rights benefited WHITE PEOPLE ONLY?????!!!!

If Democrats lose their focus on the working class, they are not New Democrats. They are Plutocrats, or in more modern terms, Republicans. Wow. Am I excited to be a part of this Bowers Movement yet?

But wait. Maybe I'm being too harsh with this paragon of creativity. Let's just see what he thinks the New Democratic Party will accomplish for its adherents.

So, taking our focus off the working class and allowing the right-wing, academic and wealthy few to take control, will be an upgrade from the 90's and the Clintons' accomplishments?

I told you I'd get to the plutocratic part. You see, the "creative class" types should take over the Party because they are so much better than the DLC elites who are currently running the Party. (I'm sure this opinion has nothing to do with the fact that Bowers and his ilk see themselves as future powerbrokers in an Obama administration. Nope, no self-interest there.)

Unfortunately, these more right-wing, academic, wealthy types are still elites. And the REAL change that has been happening since 2006 has been that more and more progressives are being elected to Congress. In the blogosphere, we've been chanting "More and better Dems, please!" and putting our money where our mouths are. This year, Democrats are poised to gain a larger majority in the House and a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

I thought the progressive movement was towards less elitism, not more. That would be the change I'm looking for.

Fuck you, Chris Bowers. You and your cohorts, not Hillary Clinton, are the ones trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

This so-called Bubba despises you for it.

Guys, you blew it.

Air America - you went off the rails. Look what Randi Rhodes did in public. Urinating on herself would have been less embarrassing.

Daily Kos - you've become an echo chamber of ranting lunatics.

Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Buzzflash, AmericaBlog - you've become the I Hate Hillary show.

Keith Olbermann - why don't you just foam at the mouth a little more when discussing the presidential race? You and Tweety can spit at each other and compete to see who hates Hillary more.

You can't fix it now, as I understand some of you are belatedly, and insincerely, trying to do. It's too late.

We liberals once looked to you as an alternative to the ravings of Fox News and the relentless pro-Bush spin of the corporate media. Yes, we knew you had a bias, but we needed it, because we needed a dose of reality-based reality instead of Orwellian realish-ness.

At first, we visited and listened with joy. Finally, someone was telling the truth about warrantless wiretapping, torture, anti-Constitutional activities, stolen elections, and so much more!

But then, something changed. Slowly, each outlet picked a side in the Democratic presidential nomination; and amazingly, it was always the same side. Oh, some pretended they were objective, but it was blindingly obvious that progressive media had lined up 100% behind Barack Obama.

Even that would not have been so bad, but once you decided to love Obama, apparently, you decided to hate Hillary Clinton. I mean, really, REALLY hate her. Randi Rhodes was YouTubed saying what she said, but over the past several months, I have seen and heard so many things that are so much worse than that...relentless, non-stop poisoning of the well of public opinion against Hillary.

Let me repeat that.

The progressive media decided to bash, malign, smear and hate the possible Democratic nominee for President.

Now, in a rational universe, Hillary Clinton is a much better pick for liberals than John "McCaca" McCain for president. As I've pointed out many times, her progressive voting record is 91% - check it out on ProgressivePunch.org. She was the only person in recent history to try to bring universal health care to the U.S., and deserves a lot of credit for the SCHIP program. I could go on and on, but let's get real. McCaca is old, incompetent and clueless, and determined to continue the disastrous policies of the Worst President Evah. We simply cannot afford him as President. CANNOT.

But apparently, as I've also pointed out, Obamans really do not understand who the enemy is. They really think that Obama is The One and Hillary is a horrible monster tearing chunks out of his beautiful saintly hide purely for the edification of her own unseemly ambitions. And once you've drunk that Koolaid, you must hold these beliefs, even if you are a progressive news blog, a progressive pundit or a progressive news/talk network.

No more do we hear about Bush and the various machinations of the Dems in Congress in their endless attempts to undo the damage he's done. No more do we hear about McCaca and how flawed he is as a candidate. All we hear is HILLARY LIED! HILLARY CRIED! HILLARY'S DEAD! WHY DOESN'T THAT BITCH DIE?

All I can say is, Big Progressive Media, you have completely lost it. You've lost all your credibility. You've lost listeners, readers and viewers, and you're going to lose more. Because now? Many of us are going to Fox News for balance (I won't do it myself, but many are). Yes, Fox News is less hateful to Hillary and more fair to both candidates than Big Progressive Media. What the hell is wrong with you?

I will never understand why, but you fucked us all over for the sake of Barack Obama and his sweet, sweet Koolaid. And if he's not the nominee, or if he loses the GE? Why, you'll blame evil monster Hillary - but by that time, will anyone care about you?

I sure hope that Koolaid tasted goooooood. Because you've proven the right-wingers right once again: the American left is fucking crazy. We don't even need them to destroy us; we've destroyed ourselves. In a year where we should have won the Presidency by a landslide, we might have handed the presidency to John McCain. KKKarl & Co. are chortling with glee at our puerile stupidity.

There is some good news. Already new and smaller media is rising to compete with the old, but they have an uphill battle against the Hillary Hatred that they are having a hard time winning. I have blogrolled some of them, and I hope you will check them out.

The next time we mount a concerted effort to fight with the Big Boys, we must focus our ammunition on enemy soldiers and stop using friendly fire on our own troops.

If not, Big Progressive Media in this country will always be doomed to die.

Hopeful Wooooooohooooooo!

Tucker Carlson, the formerly bowtied, banal Face of Evil at MSNBC, will apparently be fired today.

I don't know the person who is quoted on the possible reasons for the buh-bye, but Mr. Alex Blaze certainly has a way with words.

"Maybe MSNBC has realized that swinging to the Right to try and shake out Fox News for viewers isn't a winning strategy," opines The Bilerico Project's Alex Blaze. "Or maybe they realized that at least half their commentators should accept the reality that white men aren't oppressed. Or maybe they think that people don't want to watch a bully wannabe talk about his fun days of beating up [gays]. Or maybe they got tired of his history of abusing the rules of logic, evidence, and reality."

May I add to that excellent summation?

Perhaps MSNBC looked at Rachel Maddow, then looked at Tucker, then looked at Rachel again and said, "Hmmmmm....who are people really liking and respecting on this show?"

We don't know who will replace him, or what format the show will take, but I'm optimistic as always, and I'm hoping it's La Maddow. Despite her recent Obamania, she's still one of the most intelligent and insightful liberal/progressive political commentators around; and it sure would be nice to see more of them on my teevee.

On this day when we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. and mourn his untimely assassination by persons still unknown, I find myself thinking about the principles he held so dear. Why was he such a hero to so many? Why was he so effective in convincing our leaders to change the laws of this land?

Did he have a huge stockpile of weapons? No. Did he scream about how his oppressors, the white men, were devils? No. Did he incite his people to murder and revenge? No. He based his movement on love, as befitted a minister who lived the words of Jesus Christ. In other words, he was a proud, true liberal.

Contrast the movement conservatives like George W. Bush and his minions, and how they want to bring about change in this country. Do they have a huge stockpile of weapons? Yes, and they do not hesitate to use them and build more. Do they scream about how their enemies, the brown people, are devils? Yes - they decry made-up threats like "Islamofascism," and claim that Muslims are evildoers who want to destroy America. Do they incite their followers to murder and revenge? Yes - and they are proud of their torturing, murdering ways. As Mitt Romney said, "Double Gitmo!" And as John McCain sang, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." And as Dick Cheney said, "Waterboarding is a no-brainer." Etcetera, etcetera.

I hope that the horror of the Bush era will finally convince Americans that hate and fear can never bring about true, lasting and positive change. Only love can be that strong and pure and uplifting.

Being a lifetime DFH type, I have always been puzzled as to why conservatives fear the "left." To paraphrase, what's so scary about peace, love and understanding?

I got a bit of a clue when I began to read Tim Weiner's fascinating book, "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA." Who knew that one of the reasons the CIA began intervening in elections in sovereign nations...was to prevent the Vatican from falling into the hands of the "godless"?

I admit that back in 1948, when Christian believers in the CIA threw the Italian election to the Christian Democrats (preventing the Communist Party from taking power), there was some cause for fear. No one knew what Stalin's plans were, and no one knew just how far his arm stretched. It was possible that if the Communists won the election, they would burn the Holy See to the ground - or perhaps worse, decide to redistribute its vast wealth a bit more equitably among the people. The horror!

But now? The Soviet Union, despite Fred Thompson's assertions, no longer exists. Stalin's been dead for a long time, and the Communist Party in America barely exists. All that remains is we, the Murkin middle-of-the-roaders, who have been pushed and prodded into a "radical left" frame that doesn't fit any more.

I have a message for our poor propagandized brethren and sistren in the Christian faith. Be not afraid; for lo, we liberals and progressive types have no desire to demand that you give up your religion. We are not communists, despite the rantings and ravings of paid psy-operatives like Rush Limbaugh. Many of us, believe it or not, are also people of the Christian faith. (It's true!) In fact, did you know that both Al Gore and Jimmy Carter are evangelical Christians? I swear on a stack of Bibles!

I understand that you've been told that were we to take over the government, we'd take your guns, force your children into gay marriage and burn down the churches and temples. But isn't it time you realized how ridiculous that is?

All we want is the separation of faith and state. In the interest of freedom of religion, we want everyone to be able to worship as they please - and we don't want the government to tell us what religion, if any, we must espouse.

Now, doesn't that sound like a world we want to live in?

If you are not an economist, and you want a concise explanation of what Atrios calls "Big Shitpile," let Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect explain it to you. (Thanks, Dad, for bringing this to my attention!)

The article is remarkable not only for its clarity, but for its framing. New Deal good! Free-market fairy tales bad! Amazingly, regulation is not the worst thing that can happen to an economy, and just lowering interest rates does not magically infuse the system with high-value cash. Who woulda thunk it?!

To me, Business as an entity is like a child experiencing its "Terrible Two's." All of a sudden, "NO!" is the only word the child seems to be able to say. Although the Terrible Two's are difficult for parents, they are also a crucial time for setting limits and imposing discipline. Is the child intrinsically bad? Of course not, but it needs to learn morality. Without the proper guidance, it will develop not into a responsible member of society, but instead into a spoiled, selfish brat. (Of course, that may happen despite the best efforts of the parents, but that doesn't mean the parents are excused from trying.)

And that's where conservative economic policy (what Kuttner calls "free market fairy tales") fails us. Business is not intrinsically bad - in fact, it can be very, very good. But Business has no moral compass - it exists purely for profit. Without strong limits and regulation, it will become an anti-societal force, and that's just what has happened.

The conservative movement has been very, very good at selling the idea of unregulated markets by hooking it to the mythos of the American cowboy. He's out on the range, striking out on his own, no one to tell him no, singing "Don't Fence Me In." How oh-so-very-manly! Like Robert Kuttner, we liberals need to re-frame this debate. The free-marketeers are not cowboys. They are the robber barons; the triple-chinned fat cats who light their cigars with $100 bills; the guys who take your hard-earned pension and use it to buy hundred-foot-yachts for their buddies.

Nobody likes those guys.

When will progressives learn that the traditional media lies about Democrats? Apparently, never.

Here's some detailed information about the new FISA legislation STRENGTHENING FISA and giving Bush...nothing.

I must say, I think that Fascists have a point about liberals and progressives. Some of us ARE whiners. Moreover, we are so ready to believe the worst about our representatives that we are very easily led by the rightwing echo chamber into screaming how worthless, how weak, how useless the Democrats are, even when they are doing the right thing. Heckuva job, us!!!

Say what you will about the Fascists, and believe me, I do - they don't give up. It took them 40 years to get where they are today, and they've had a whole six years of sweet, sweet power because of their efforts. They have also succeeded in completely destroying the Republican Party and uniting 70% of the country behind the progressive agenda, but hey! They were committed and they accomplished their objectives for a time. Why can't we borrow some of their spine and determination?

And why can't we acknowledge that yes, Democrats ARE better than Fascists. Yes, they do a lot of things right. Yes, their ideas are usually good. Deal with it. Our side is the right side!

I'm so tired of hearing people bitch and moan about the Democratic Congress. If we won't even take the trouble to correctly inform ourselves, then we shouldn't devolve into hysteria every time a misleading story is planted about in the traditional media.

We should all take a breath before we jump.